Christian Woman's Headcovering (Original)

The Christian
Woman’s
Headcovering
Bishop Jerry Hayes
An Exegesis Of 1 Corinthians
11:1-16
©2013 Seventh Millennium Publication, a division of the Apostolic Disciples of
the Way. This manuscript is protected by International Copyright Laws; all rights
are reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
or by any information storage and retrieval system, without the written
permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America.
All Scripture references are from the King James Version, unless otherwise
noted. Historical references from the Ante-Nicene Fathers are abbreviated as
ANF, and are from Church Fathers—Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts,
D.D., and James Donaldson, LL.D., editors, Henderson Publishers, Peabody,
Massachusetts. The abbreviation “RAC” stands for Religious Article of
Clothing; it is our term for the veil.
ISBN-13:9781482527469
1
The Christian Woman’s Headcovering
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to all the gracious women of God

who have upheld the precepts of Scripture, even in the
face of an increasingly hostile world, in an indifferent
church age.
Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far

above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust
in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do
him good and not evil all the days of her life...
Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall

rejoice in time to come. She openeth her mouth with
wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. ...
Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that

feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. Give her of the
fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in
the gates.
The Preacher
!2
Bishop Jerry Hayes
THE HOLY SCRIPTURE
Letter to the Corinthians From Paul the Apostle:
“Be ye followers of me, even as I also

am of Christ. “Now I praise you, brethren, that
ye remember me in all things, and keep the
ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I
would have you know, that the head of every
man is Christ; and the head of the woman is
the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Every man praying or prophesying, having
his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But
every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with
her head uncovered dishonoreth her head:
for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
For if the woman be not covered, let her also
be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to
be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a
man indeed ought not to cover his head,
forasmuch as he is the image and glory of
!3
God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

For the man is not of the woman; but the
woman of the man. Neither was the man
created for the woman; but the woman for the
man. For this cause ought the woman to
have power on her head because of the
angels. Nevertheless, neither is the man
without the woman, neither the woman
without the man, in the Lord. For as the
woman is of the man, even so is the man
also by the woman; but all things of God.
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a
woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not
even nature itself teach you, that, if a man
have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if
a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:
for her hair is given her for a covering. But if
any man seems to be contentious, we have
no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Corinthians 11:1-16
!4
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Table of Contents
Introduction pg 6
Chapter I, Paul’s Outline pg 10
Chapter II, Headcovering Identified and Enjoined pg 14
Chapter III, Four Spiritual and Scriptural Arguments
pg 41
Chapter IV, Ought the Woman To Have Power
On Her Head pg 51
Chapter V, Headcovering is Only a Symbol pg 61
Chapter VI, Badge of Authority pg 65
Chapter VII, Reasoning Together pg 71
Chapter VIII, Answering the Most Popular
Objection (Culture) pg 80
Chapter IX, Veil vs Long Hair, Historical
Witnesses pg 87
Chapter X, The Tragedy of Neglected Headship pg 106
Chapter XI, Greek Authorities on
1 Corinthians 11:16 pg 116
Chapter XII, John Chrysostom, Homily XXVI pg 123
Chapter XIII, An Historical Witness of Images pg 138
About the Author pg 141
Catolog of Books pg 142
!5
Introduction
The subject of headship, is, perhaps, the most
controversial issue of our modern Christian society. The
idea of equality of the sexes has so permeated the thought
processes of our age that to speak of any differences
between male and female is to be considered politically
incorrect. Therefore, the topic of this treatise is, perhaps,
the most disputed one of our age. Since the Lordʼs
Church has concerned itself with being a reflection of the
society in which it finds itself, our present topic is then
controversial, even in the congregations of the Lordʼs
church. This should not be the case. The Church should
not be a thermometer that simply reflects the temperature
of its surroundings; but the Church should concern
herself with being our societyʼs thermostat, that sets a
standard which will bring societyʼs norms up to the
presetting of Holy Scripture. Having said that, we will
embark on a study of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16.
It should be stated at the very beginning of our
study that the Apostolic Disciples of the Way is dedicated
to bringing to you the first century gospel in and for the
twenty-first century world. We believe that the Lordʼs
Church, of any century, should be preaching and
practicing what the Bible teaches.
In 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 we find, perhaps, the
single most controversial subject in the New Testament.
It was controversial in Paulʼs day, and it remains so
today.
!6
Bishop Jerry Hayes
I am very aware that most of the people who call

themselves Christians, especially in the western world,
do not practice the injunction that Apostle Paul sets down
for the Lordʼs church in this portion of Godʼs Word.
However, it is our hope that those of you who read this
study are mature enough to appreciate an in-depth look
into the logic and reasoning behind Paulʼs teaching of the
Christian womanʼs headcovering. This teaching enjoins
upon the Lordʼs church that a Christian woman should
have her head covered when in the public place of
meeting. We realize, however, that many Christians of
the twenty-first century do not practice this portion of the
New Testament. I must say that I am surprised, even
appalled, that so many of Godʼs people have ignored this
teaching. My surprise is especially keen since such a
large portion of the New Testament scripture is dedicated
to Christian headcovering, and the fact that it has
commanded such an important position in the Christian
ethos for the last two millennia.
The teaching of the Christian womanʼs head-
covering in public worship has its basis in the principle
of headship which is taught in the Christian Scriptures.
The biblical position of headship comes from God’s
order in creation: God, Christ, man, and woman (1 Cor
11:3). I suppose that we should not be surprised that the
practice of headcovering has fallen by the wayside since
so much of Godʼs church has forsaken His order of
headship altogether.
!7
When Jesus was asked about the Christian

religiosities (the question was on fasting) He responded
with the parable of the Wine and Wineskins (Matt
9:14-17). In Jesus’ parable, the religious act (i.e. fasting)
was the wineskin that held and preserved the wine, which
was the affliction of ones soul; the fasting, then,
demonstrated the inward affliction.1 In like manner, it is
important to understand that the headcovering is only the
“wineskin” which contains the “wine;” namely, the
principle of headship. The wineskin is the object lesson
which teaches the principle—which is the wine. I must
hasten to say that it is this writer’s observation that when
the object lesson of any principle is ignored, the tenet is
soon forgotten altogether. That is to say: “If the wineskin
is neglected the wine will spoil.”
In 1 Corinthians 11:3 we read: “I would have you
know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head
of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is
God.” This is the very basis for the teaching of
1 Leviticus 16:29-31 And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in
the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your
souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a
stranger that sojourneth among you: 30 For on that day shall the priest
make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from
all your sins before the Lord. 31 It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you,
and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.
Ezra 8:21 Then I proclaimed a fast there, at the river of Ahava, that we
might afflict ourselves before our God, to seek of him a right way for
us, and for our little ones, and for all our substance.
Isaiah 58:3 Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and thou seest not?
wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and thou takest no knowledge?
Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your
labours.
!8
Bishop Jerry Hayes
headcovering. Paul goes on to instruct the Christian

Church that women, when in public worship, where they
may participate in praying and prophesying, should have
their heads covered; the men, on the other hand, are to be
uncovered. The apostle Paul begins his teaching on
headship by admonishing the Corinthian church to be
followers of him just as he was of Christ (see verse 1).
The Corinthian Christians were not the best
behaved. They presented their Apostle with many
occasions for scolding them. However, not all in Corinth
had transgressed in the matter of the headcovering. We
notice that he praised the church for keeping “the
ordinances as” he had “delivered them;” and this was,
no doubt, the vast majority of the congregation. But, to
the rest at Corinth, Paul has some correcting to do. We
must make no mistake about it, Paul is correcting
belligerent Christian women who were coming to the
assembly with their heads uncovered.
The rebels in Corinth were not only demonstrating
their wrong spirit in the matter of the headcovering, but,
also, in their misuse of the Lordʼs Supper. Concerning
their observance of the latter he clearly states: “I praise
you not” (verse 22). So, obviously, ALL the Corinthians
were not remembering Paul “in all things,” and were not
keeping the ordinances as he “delivered them.” At any
rate, Paul is writing to address certain abuses that had
arisen in Corinth—the matter of headcovering being one.
!9
Chapter I
PAUL’S OUTLINE
The Apostleʼs epistle to the Corinthians on the
subject of headcovering takes a definite course which, if
understood, will remove the confusion that surrounds this
passage in many quarters of the Lord’s church. Is Paul’s
“required covering” a veil or long hair? As it is, most pay
no attention to context or outline. Some, having no
instruction in laws of Scriptural interpretation, put the
cart directly in front of the horse in appealing to verse 15
for the identity of the covering of verses 3-10. By doing
so, verse 15 is robbed of its context, and violence is done
to holy Scripture.
There is a precise outline to Paul’s presentation.
The teaching of headship (and the headcovering, that is
an intrinsic part) of verses 3-16 is divided into four major
sections: verses 3-6, 7-10, 11-12, and 13-16.
Actually, Paul’s apostolic injunction of the
headcovering is given in the first four verses of the
address concerning headship (vv3-6). Here, the Apostle
identifies the headcovering, and takes great pains to
enjoin the ordinance upon the church at Corinth. After
which comes four verses (vv7-10) that catalog four
arguments which he presents for the mandate given in
verses 3-6; these arguments are at once Scriptural and
Spiritual (none of which are cultural in nature).
Following, is an Interlude involving verses 11 and 12. In
this section the Apostle softens the sting that must have
!10
Bishop Jerry Hayes
been felt (is even today felt) from his previous

admonition in verses 3-10. In the Interlude the
Corinthians are assured of the interdependency of both
sexes: Just as the first female was taken from the side of
man, so all men since that time have come from the
womb of a woman. Finally, and fourthly, in verses 13
through 16 Paul reasons with the Corinthians, in behalf
of the headcovering, from three areas of life: conscience,
nature, and Christian society.
Paul’s mention of hair as a covering does not
come until the section of the teaching that deals with
reasoning from nature. Therefore, it would be a violation
of the “Law of Context” to attempt to teach hair as the
covering required in verses 3-10. The long “hair” of verse
15 is offered by Paul as a reason from nature for the
required veil. One should consider the words of the noble
John Chrysostom (347-407), from his Homily XXVI. We
are instructed in the admonition of John Chrysostom of
two coverings: one from nature, i.e. the hair—that is
universal for all women, Christian and non-Christian
alike; the other, the RAC (Religious Article of Clothing),
required by God’s law for Christian women, when in
prayer or operating in the gifts of the Spirit, such as
prophesying. It seems that then, as now, some argued that
if nature has given the woman a natural covering in her
hair, what need did she have for a second covering. To
this complaint Chrysostom wrote:
“‘And if it be given her for a covering,’
say you, ‘wherefore need she add
another covering?’ That not nature
!11
only, but also her own will may have

part in her acknowledgment of
subjection. For that thou oughtest to
be covered nature herself by
anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I
pray, thine own part also, that thou
mayest not seem to subvert the very
laws of nature; a proof of most
insolent rashness, to buffet not only
with us, but with nature also.”
______________________
A valid study of the Christian woman’s
headcovering MUST be executed within the context and
framework of Paul’s outline. For the sake of a visual
concept we give the outline of Paul’s teaching here.
I. Headcovering Identified and Enjoined (1

Corinthians 11:3-6).
A. God’s order of creation: v3;
B. Prohibition on men praying or prophesying
with the head covered; this dishonors Christ:
v4;
C.Prohibition on women praying or
Prophesying with an uncovered head: this
dishonors the man: v5;
D.The covering is identified as a veil (Religious
Article of Clothing); if a woman refuses to
veil herself she should ALSO cut her hair, it is
the same shame: v6.
II. Headcovering Established By Four Scriptural and
!12
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Spiritual Arguments (1 Corinthians 11: 7-10)

A. The woman is the glory of man (v7);
B. The woman was created from the man (8);
C. The woman was created for the man (9);
D. Because of the angles (v10).
III. Interlude (1 Corinthians 11:11-12)

The interdependency of both sexes.
IV. Headcovering Is Reasoned From Three Areas of

the Corinthians’ Life (1 Corinthians 11:13-16).
A.Reasoned From Conscience (13);
B. Reasoned From Nature (14-15);
C. Reasoned From Christian Society (16).
!13
Chapter II
HEADCOVERING IDENTIFIED AND

ENJOINED
(1 Corinthians 11:3-6)
An Exegesis of Verses 3-6
Verse 3.
But I would have you know, that the head of every man
is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and
the head of Christ is God.
In this verse Paul
lays the foundation
for everything he is
about to teach. It is
very purposeful that
headship is introduc-
ed at the very begin-
ning, because it is the
lesson being taught by
the headcovering. God has placed an order of authority
into His creation. For there to be peace and tranquility in
His world, this order of authority must be recognized and
honored. This is an indisputable fact, and we hear this
matter-of-fact tone in Paulʼs words “But I would have
you know, ...”
If the principle of authority is neglected, in any
area of creation, Anarchy and his twin brother Chaos
rule. This is especially true in the kingdom of God.
!14
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Discontentment with oneʼs sphere of authority was

the original sin that divided heaven and created the Devil
(Isaiah 14:12-14;2 Revelation 12:7-93 respectively). This
original sin of Lucifer’s was threatening the Apostleʼs
congregation at Corinth—and has raised its head to
threaten Christʼs church today. Here, Paul is giving an
apostolic edict which, if obeyed, would maintain a
bulwark against Anarchy and Chaos throughout the ages
to come.
Paul demonstrates his prowess as a master teacher
in verse 3. His task is to enjoin a headcovering for
Christian women on the grounds that they have an
authority over them, and they were to function in the
kingdom of God in respect to this headship, or authority.
(I might mention here that Paul employs the word “head”
throughout his writings to indicate authority: e.g.
Ephesians 5:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 2:10.) To bring this
truth to bear he wisely shows that everyone, from Christ
down, functions under the order of headship (authority).
Since he is targeting the women in this ordinance, he
2 Isa 14:12-14 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I
will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount
of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the
heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
3 Rev 12:7-9 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels
fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And
prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And
the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and
Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth,
and his angels were cast out with him.
!15
softens his approach by listing the manʼs head first—then

concludes by showing that even Christ has a head. The
Christian woman finds herself in the middle position (in
Paul’s list) between man, who functions under the
authority of Christ, and Christ who, functions under the
authority of God. Therefore, her position in the economy
of the Kingdom is supported and encouraged by the
knowledge of man having an authority over him on the
one hand and Christ having an authority over Him on the
other. In Paul’s argument, Man and Christ, then, form
bookends that bolster her in her role.
Notice that the role of the woman in Kingdom
economy is to operate beneath the headship of her male
head. The text says the “head of the woman is THE
man.” Attention must be given to the definite article
“the.” The text does not read: “the head of the woman is
man;” if it did, then men in general would be in authority
over women in general. By the introduction of the
definite article, Paul has the individual particular woman
in view; the individual particular woman would then
have an individual particular man as her head. Thus, the
“head” of a virgin would be her father or perhaps an
older brother, if the father had passed; for a married
woman her head would be her husband. For a woman
who was widowed or divorced the question of headship
may become more involved. In the Old Testament,
widows and divorcees stood for themselves before God
without being subject to male headship. This is seen from
Numbers 30:9, “...every vow of a widow, and of her that
!16
Bishop Jerry Hayes
is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls,

shall stand against her.” Thus, both the widow and the
divorcee hold the same status—in regard to a vow. This
is true because neither of the two are under the authority
of a PARTICULAR man. If the woman was married and
her husband was alive then any vow that she might have
made would need to be validated by her male headship.
However, since the womanʼs husband was either dead or
divorced from her she stood for herself before God. In
the Lordʼs church it may be scriptural to assign the pastor
as the head to widows and divorcees, in that the saints
represent the Bride of Christ, while the pastor represents
Christ to the church.
Verse 4
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head
covered, dishonoreth his head.
Here, the Apostle introduces the subject at hand;
namely, the proper decorum of apostolic worshipers in
the assembly. We know that the assembly is in view in
this entire passage because the subject is praying and/or
prophesying. These two (praying and prophesying) are a
coupling in the case before us: they are two parts of a
whole. The idea is: speaking in the assembly, either to
God on behalf of the congregation (i.e. leading in
prayer), or speaking to the congregation on behalf of God
(i.e. preaching or operating in the gifts). It should be
noticed, at this point, that prophesying requires an
audience. One does not prophesy in private, therefore, the
context is the public meeting. Also, since prophecy is
!17
listed, one may extrapolate this list to include all three of

the spoken gifts of the Spirit: tongues, interpretation of
tongues, and prophecy (1 Corinthians 12:10). Since
prophecy involves “telling forth” as well as “foretelling,”
the ministry of preaching should clearly be included.
Because of the emphasis on the assembly, it is
doubtful if headcovering could be enforced scripturally
outside the meeting place; some Christian women,
however, feel as though they should wear the head-
covering at all times, in case the Holy Spirit wanted to
speak through them while outside of the congregation.
Moreover, some stress the Christian veil for the
sake of modesty. If, indeed, modesty is the reason for the
veiling of women then a clear argument may be
presented for women being covered outside of the
congregation. However, this author is very cautious about
suggesting a reason (purpose) for the veil that the Apostle
does not give. It will be acknowledge by anyone who
reads the passage under consideration that “modesty” is
not a reason Paul invokes for the veiling of women. (Our
use of the word “veil” is a synonym for the head-
covering; therefore, our term “veil” does not suggest a
covered face.)
From verse 4, then, the Church is instructed that
the proper decorum for a man when praying (leading the
congregation in prayer), or prophesying (speaking in
behalf of God to the congregation) is to be bareheaded.
(The Greek: kata kephaleis echon; lit. “having anything
!18
Bishop Jerry Hayes
down over his head.” The Amplified Bible reads; “For a

man ought not to wear anything on his head.”
It should be pointed out that this is a drastic

departure from the Jewish custom of the yarmulke and
prayer shawl. Paulʼs instruction (and that of the other
apostles: see verse 16) was a new wineskin (i.e. Christian
religious form) to hold and preserve the new wine
(Christian worship principle). Whereas, the Jews pray
with covered heads in the synagogues the Christian men
were to pray with uncovered heads.
yarmulke |ˈyämə(l)kə|
(also yarmulka), a
noun; a skullcap worn
in public by Orthodox
Jewish men or during
prayer by other Jewish
men.
(The reader will

notice that this practice, of praying or preaching with
uncovered heads, continues to be observed by Christian
!19
men universally, even in areas of the world where

Christian women have neglected the ordinance—as is
seen in the West.)
In verse 4, “head” is listed twice. The former
references the physical head of the man, while the latter
is a metaphor for Christ, since verse 3 tells us that Christ
is the “head of man.” Therefore, Paul teaches: For a man
to speak in the assembly with something on his head
brings dishonor to Christ, who is the head of man. One
must never suggest that this passage (1 Corinthians
11:3-16) mandates a prohibition on women only, for this
mandate also, and perhaps more importantly, prohibits
men from being covered in the assembly. I say: “more
importantly” because to dishonor Christ is more severe
than dishonoring man.
The Covering Identified
Many argue that the actual covering cannot be
identified by verses 4, 5, 6, 7, and 13, and would insist
on verse 15 identifying the long hair as Paul’s intended
covering. We take strong issue with that position, and
will set about to show why.
The word for the covering in our text is
“katakalupto” (Strongʼs #G2619). Katakalupto means
“to cover oneʼs self” (Thayer). Katakalupto is in the
middle voice of the Greek language, requiring an action
on the person’s part—such as a cloth covering, that one
could put on and take off (a RAC). This is the covering
spoken of in verses 4-13.
!20
Bishop Jerry Hayes
In the English language, verbs are either active or

passive. If the subject of the sentence is executing the
action, then the verb is referred to as being in the active
voice. If the subject of the sentence is being acted upon,
then the verb is referred to as being in the passive voice.
But, in Greek there is a third voice which shows the
subject acting in his/her own interest, or on his/her own
behalf. For example, in the statement: “I am washing
myself,” the subject performs the action and yet is
receiving the action. Thus, with “having his head
covered” (1 Corinthians 1:4), the subject performs the
action of “covering” and is receiving the action of “being
covered.” So, Paul is not describing the noun, hair, as
being uncut with his injunction against men having a
“covered head,” nor is he speaking of cutting the hair
with his injunction against women being uncovered, but
he IS speaking of reflexive ACTION4. Therefore, “having
long hair” and “being covered” are NOT inter-
changeable.)
However, when the hair is referenced as the
womanʼs “covering” (in verse 15) the word is the noun:
“peribolaion” (Strongʼs #G4018). Because “peri-
bolaion” is a noun and “katakalupto” is a verb, it is
argued by United Pentecostal Church International
scholar, Daniel Segraves, that they are not inter-
changeable. Here is a quote from his book, “Hair Length
in the Bible” page 23:
4reflexive verb - a verb whose agent performs an action that is directed

at the agent; "the sentence ‘he washed’ has a reflexive verb";
!21
“It is wrong to say that the verb cover means

veil. ... Katakalupto does not mean “veil.” It is
formed from kata, a preposition meaning “down
from” or “down upon,” and kalupto, meaning “to
cover, hide, or conceal.” The Greek text of verses
4-7 teaches that a man’s head is to be uncovered
and a woman’s head is to be covered; it does not
say what the covering is. Moreover, katakalupto in
verse 6 is a verb, while peribolaion in verse 15 is a
noun. They cannot be interchanged.” Page 28: “ ...
in v15 Paul states unequivocally that a woman’s
long hair takes the place of an item of dress.”
The Septuagint Refutes Segraves

Segraves’ argument is that Paul does not identify
the covering in verses previous to v15; and, that, in verse
15 the covering is identified as the hair. he does this by
defining the two parts of katakalupto (kata and kalupto),
but does not define the word as it exists in its compound
form. And then declares that “katakalupto” and
“peribalaion” cannot be interchanged.
Even though peribolaion is a noun, the verb form
is periballo, and the correct grammatical form of the
verb, periballo, IS used INTERCHANGEABLY with the
!22
Bishop Jerry Hayes
verb, katakalupto, in the Septuagint,5 the Greek

translation of the Old Testament. Here we see
katakalupto and periballo both mean “veil.”
Genesis 38:14, 15 “Tamar...covered (periebale)
her with a veil... When Judah saw her he
thought her to be an harlot; because she had
covered (katekalupsato) her face.”
Segraves, further postulates, “... the KJV trans-
lation ‘having his head covered’ is a literal rendering, and
it leaves open the question of the nature of the covering.”
A literal rendering simply means that it is a word-
for-word translation from the Greek, without any
paraphrasing or amplifying. The truth is, the Greek
speaking Christians of the 1st century would have
understood the common idiom employed by Paul to
reference the RAC. (Here, again, the proponents of the
2Oth Century American Innovation, of long, uncut, hair
being Paul’s required covering, are caught by the idiom.
Their tripwire is trying to understand 1 Corinthians 11
3-16 in a 20th century American church context.) The
word-group which includes the words translated “cover”
and “uncover” in verses 5, 6, 7 and 13 is not used
5 Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the

Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin
in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. The
Septuagint was also a source of the Old Testament for early Christians
during the first few centuries A.D. Many early Christians spoke and read
Greek, thus they relied on the Septuagint translation for most of their
understanding of the Old Testament. The New Testament writers also
relied heavily on the Septuagint, as a majority of Old Testament quotes
cited in the New Testament are quoted directly from the Septuagint.
!23
elsewhere to refer to the hair. The usage of kalupto (also:

apokalupto, kata-kalumma, katakalupto, kalumma,
krupto, sunkaumma, and sunkalupto) refers to an external
fabric covering over 80 times, in the Septuagint (Grk
OT), but never once to long hair:6
Examples:
• Genesis . 28:15 – “... she had covered her face ...”
(with a veil – Gen. 38:14)
• Exodus. 28:42 – “... make them linen breeches to
cover their nakedness ...”
• Numbers. 5:18 – “And the priest shall set the
woman before the Lord, and uncover the
woman’s head.,..” (her hair also uncovered—not
cut)
• Ruth 3:4,7 – “and thou shalt go in, and uncover
his feet...” “...she came softly, and uncovered his
feet...” (a blanket)
• Esther 6:12 – “...and having his head
covered...” (his hair also covered)
In verse 4 the expression translated “having his
head covered” is literally rendered: “having down on a
head.” In the Greek it is kata (down) kephales (head)
echon (having.) Kata kephales (= ‘down the head’) is
found in the Septuagint in Esther 6:12. In the Septuagint
(Grk OT) we read that Haman went to his house
“mourning down on a head” (lypoumenos kata
6 “No More Excuses,” by A. A. Bieler
!24
Bishop Jerry Hayes
kephales)—a way of saying he put something over his

head to show his mourning (an idiom). Obviously,
Haman did not grow long hair.7
“And Mordecai came again to the king’s gate.
But Haman hasted to his house mourning, and
having his head covered.”
The minority of Biblical teachers, who believe the
“covering” is long hair, point to the absence of a noun
naming the identity of the “covering” in the phrase,
“kata kephales echon;” but, one must acknowledge that
neither is there a noun in Esther 6:12. According to Dr.
Richard Oster, in When Men Wore Veils to Worship: the
Historical Context of 1 Corinthians 11:4, the “argument
from silence” is not valid. Dr. Oster states,
“It is clear from Greek and Latin texts the
argument based on the absence of a noun in 11:4 is
specious. In a score of examples from Plutarch that
refer to a head covering, or the lack of it, there is
no consistent pattern for describing the wearing of
the head covering. The noun is often lacking. ...
Often in Greek sources the term “head” was not to
be found. On the basis of silence, is one to
conclude that some other part of the body was
being covered since the term kephales is not
specifically employed? Moreover, the Latin
sources that mention head coverings often do not
7 “No Such Custom,” by Bruce Terry, pages 6-7
!25
mention the garment that covers the head, but only

that the head is covered—capite velato.”
Plutarch,8 in his Sayings of the Romans, speaks of
Scipio the Younger walking through Alexandria “having
the garment down the head” (kata tes kephales echon to
himation), meaning that he concealed his head with part
of his toga to avoid being recognized by the people.
(Plutarch is especially important to the modern Bible
student because of the time period in which he lived and
wrote: A.D. 45-120).
Doctor Oster further explains: “When describing
individuals wearing head coverings Plutarch demon-
strates that “kata kephales echon” can refer to something
resting on the head. Greek literature contemporary with
the NT demonstrates that the phrase “kata kephales” can
clearly mean ‘on the head.’” Oster cites Plutarch and
Josephus.9
The noun forms of this word group, katakalupsis
and katakalumma, both meaning “covering,” are not
found in the New Testament, but katakalupsis does occur
in the second century Christian writing, The Shepherd of
Hermas, Visions 4, 2, 1:
8 Plutrach: AD 46 – AD 120),was a Greek historian, biographer, and

essayist, known primarily for his Parallel Lives and Moralia. He is
considered today to be a Middle Platonist.
9Josephus De bello Judaico libri vii 2.48; Antiquitates Judaicae 1.50;
5.252; 13.117 and Plutarch Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata
200F; Aetia Romana et Graeca 267D; Vitae decem oratorum 842B;
Pyrrhus 399B; Pompeius 640C; Ceasar 739D
!26
Bishop Jerry Hayes
“...a virgin arrayed as if she were going forth from

a bride-chamber, all in white and with white
sandals, veiled up to her forehead, and her head-
covering [katakalupsis] consisted of a turban, and
her hair was white.”10
Here again it is obvious that the covering is not hair, but
a turban. Katakalumma occurs in the Septuagint, in
Isaiah 47:2, where it refers to a head-covering. In 47:2-3
we read, “Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover
thy locks [apolilupsai to katakalumma, which meant to
remove your veil—not cut the hair] uncover the thigh [or
take off the skirt—anakalupsai tas polias--...] Thy
nakedness shall be uncovered (anakaluphthesetai.)”
Once again the covering is cloth or fabric. 11
“Uncovered” in verses 5 and 13 translates
akatakaluptos, and is found nowhere else in the NT, and
only once in the Septuagint. One manuscript contains the
word in Leviticus 13:45 where it is said that one with a
leprous baldness should “uncover” his head. It is obvious
“uncover” does not mean cutting off the hair.
Philo, the Greek philosopher, used the word for
“uncovered” to mean removing a cloth.12
When to Cover
10J.B. Lightfoot (trans.) “The Apostolic Fathers”, ed. J.R. Harmer [Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967]
11 “Head Coverings in Public Worship,” by Brian Schwertley; p5
12 Schreiner, 126, “Women Who Pray or Prophesy: 1 Cor. 11:3-16”
!27
Before we pass from verse 4 it should be pointed

out that to be covered and to not be covered has
paralleling consequences for both Christian men and
women. Therefore, if the woman is to be covered at all
times, then the man must be uncovered at all times. Of
course this would mean that there would be no
circumstance in which a man could wear a hat or cap—
ever. Since all are agreed that this is inconsistent with the
necessities of life, it is then discounted. What a woman
“ought” to do (verse 10), the man “ought not” to do
(verse 7). Clearly a man is only required to be
“uncovered” when in worship, where he prays and/or
prophesies; in like manner, therefore, the woman is
required to be covered ONLY when in corporate worship,
where she prays and/or prophesies.
Verse 5.
!28
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head

uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one
as if she were shaven.
In verse 5 Paul drives to his objective: the
womanʼs head covering. Notice that the opposite is true
for the woman as was true for the man. In verse 4, if a
man (any man: notice the word “every”) speaks in the
assembly with something on his head he dishonors Christ
—who is his head. The statement: “that is all one as if
she was shaved” is a clear indicator that the Christian
faith is not practiced in a vacuum. Paul brings the
Corinthians’ attention to the natural covering of women
(not only Christian women) in general, and reminds them
how shameful it was for a woman to have her head
shaved. (A parallel is drawn between the natural covering
of hair and the religious covering. They are not the same,
but are compared for the sake of illustration.) This has
been true in every society and age of civilized peoples.
To disgrace a woman, her head was shaved. If a woman
committed adultery or was found collaborating with her
peopleʼs enemies, her hair was cut off, or her head
shaved in the public square, as it were.
The Apostle is making a hard comparison here: for
a Christian woman to appear in the assembly bareheaded
was the same dishonor in the religious arena, as having
her hair cut off would have been in the secular arena.
!29
France shaves the heads of women collaborators - 1944
Moreover, the uncovered head that Paul is referencing

here cannot be cut hair, or a short hair cut on the women:
first, because it is compared to being shaved—so there is
a difference; second, and most importantly, because the
Christian congregations had female slaves that were full
members of the Church. One mark of a female slave was
short hair or a shaved head.13 The Apostle recognized the
presence of such slave women in the Lord’s church and
gave instruction concerning their status:
Let each one remain in the same calling in which
he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave?
Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be
13See A.T. Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, 1 Cor 11:5.
“Encyclopedia of Hair: A Cultural History,” by Victoria Sherrow; “The
Corinthian Women Prophets,” by Antoinette Clark Wire; pp64-45
!30
Bishop Jerry Hayes
made free, rather use it. 22 For he who is called

in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman.
Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s
slave. 23 You were bought at a price; ... .
24 Brethren, let each one remain with God in that
state in which he was called. (1 Cor 7:20-23
NKJV)
Paul knew very well that not all women in the

Empire could grow long hair; it was only permitted for
FREE women. If growing long hair were a requirement
for participation in worship—to say nothing of salvation,
how could a female slave have been received into church
membership? Corinth’s church included both slave and
free (7:21-24). The general thought is that the Christian
congregation of Paul’s day was a mixed-caste
community, approximately half slave and half free. 14 Not
only did slave women in short hair cuts become saved,
but in the Corinthian church they prayed, prophesied and
operated in the gifts of the Spirit equally with free
women in long hair. In Christ there was no distinction
between bond or free (Gal.3:28). Following Paul’s
teaching, the early Church recognized no status
difference between slave, and master, to the point that all
persons were to be seated together in the assembly. The
word slave, although extremely common among the non-
Christians graves, is never used in inscriptions for the
Christian burials in the catacombs. Slaves were permitted
14 “The Corinthian Women Prophets,” by Antoinette Clark Wire; pp64-45
!31
to hold office in the Church, even that of bishop. It seems

that Onesimus, a slave who belonged to Philemon (see
the NT book of Philemon), became the bishop (church
overseer) of Ephesus. Ignatius mentions Bishop
Onesimus of Ephesus. Further, in his letter to the emperor
Trajan, in around 111-113AD, Pliny (governor of the
province of Pontus and Bithynia in Asia Minor) wrote
that he had tortured and interrogated two Christian slave
women. He writes that these women were called
“ministers” (Latin: ministrae).15 These slave women
were leaders in their Christian community.
Therefore, if the historical records are correct, and
it seems they are, it is not possible that Paul is insisting
on the covering of long, to say nothing of uncut, hair. To
have done so would have relegated one-half of the
Christian women to non-membership status, and unable
to participate in the worship of the church. No, the
covering is obviously a cloth RAC with which women,
whether long haired or short, could cover themselves.
It is also important to notice that according to this
verse (v5) the covering is the evidence of submission to
Godʼs appointed headship. It is the evidence of humility.
“Every woman that prays or prophesies” the Bible says
“with her head uncovered dishonors her head.”
Therefore, for the woman to pray or prophesy with a
covered head is demonstrating respect to her head, which
stations her in a position of humility.
15 Pliny the Younger, Epistle to Trajan, 10:96
!32
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Since, we are told in verse 3 that the head of the

woman is the man, we see that the womanʼs head-
covering is the token of her submission to the man. Now,
on the other hand verse 5 states that the removal of the
headcovering is a matter of grave disrespect to the
womanʼs head, i.e. husband, father, or pastor as her
guardian. The headcovering, then, shows favor; it also
shows respect.
The matter of favor and respect can be seen in the
story of Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis 24:65. In this
account, as Rebecca was delivering herself into Isaacʼs
possession she covered herself with a veil as a token of
her respect. (I realize what I am teaching is a very
unpopular subject in a time of great feminist fervor.)
As important as it is to me that the reader be
informed of my awareness of how women have been
misused and abused throughout history by men lording
over them in an ungodly and cruel manner, it is even
more important for the reader to acknowledge that the
Christian faith elevates the woman from the position she
held in days of antiquity, where she was only chattel, to a
loving position beside her male counterpart. However,
bear in mind that there is still a God ordained order—
there is a position of headship that must be maintained in
society at large, but especially in the Lordʼs church. If the
position of headship is not maintained in the Lord’s
church, we find ourselves out of order. When the Church
is out of order, God cannot bless in the way He has
purposed to do.
!33
The Bible clearly teaches superiority and in-

feriority between the roles of men and women in society.
It does not teach either sex to be a superior gender.
Pertaining to their humanity men and women are
absolutely, positively, equal. This truth must be
acknowledged and everywhere observed by those who
call on the name of Christ. The distinction between the
sexes is to be found, not in their value as human beings
(as in Islam were it takes two women to equal one man in
a court of law), but in the roles they fulfill in the family,
the church, and society at large. This distinction is to be
limited to the roles that men and women fill in life, and is
not to be assigned to the inherent value of gender. This
truth can best be illustrated by drawing a parallel between
the relationship of people within the armed services. On
one end of the spectrum you have the general, and on the
other end the private. The general is no greater or lesser a
human being than the private; nor is the private a lesser
or greater human being than the general. However, there
is a clear distinction in their rank. Therefore, it is in this
way that men and women are separated and distinct in
the economy of God. Paul stated clearly in 1 Corinthians
11:3, “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of
the woman is the man.” Furthermore, Matthew Henry, a
respected Bible commentator, said: “This is a situation in
which God has placed the woman, and for that reason
she should have a mind suited for her rank and do
nothing that looks like an affectation of changing
places.”
!34
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Verse 6
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be
shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or
shaven, let her be covered.
This particular verse is the very text that convinced
this writer, once and for all, that the “covering” required
of the New Testament Church (by its apostolic authority)
was indeed an artificial covering, a religious garment,
and not the natural covering of hair that is alleged by so
many. Long hair is viewed by many as the covering the
Apostle is commanding. This conclusion is arrived at
through a misunderstanding, and misappropriation, of
verse 15 which states that a womanʼs hair is given her for
a covering. We will deal with this verse in its proper
course. For now, we must honestly deal with verse 6. If
one does not have a proper understanding of verse 6 a
correct mental grasp of the entire passage will be out of
reach.
To those of you who are reading this article and
believe that the hair is the covering Paul is teaching, I ask
you to reason with me from this sixth verse. I am sure
that we all will be agreed that the word “shaven” means
to have oneʼs hair shaved completely from oneʼs head. It
would not be unreasonable to assume that we also would
agree that to have oneʼs hair shorn would mean to have
oneʼs hair cut off shorter than it would be if it was left to
grow. Therefore oneʼs head would be covered only if the
hair was left uncut; for to cut the hair at any length would
be shearing the hair. From this line of argument, then, it
!35
would be concluded that a woman would be uncovered if

her hair was cut, or her head shaved. (This is exactly the
position of many holiness groups such as the United
Pentecostal Church International and sister fellowships.)
Honestly, if this is the correct interpretation of
what Paul meant by being covered or uncovered, it leaves
verse 6 in a very silly and nonsensical position.
Let me explain: If the hair is the covering then we
should be able to replace the phrase “not covered” with
the phrase “have her hair cut.” Notice, then, how verse 6
would read if such were the case: “For if the woman be
not covered (have her hair cut), let her also be shorn
(have her hair cut).”
Here we give it more plainly: “For if a woman
have her hair cut, let her also have her hair cut.”
If Paul meant that the woman's headcovering were
the hair itself, this verse would be saying, “If a woman
does not have hair on her head, let her also have her hair
cut off.” It is linguistically impossible to say that the
woman's headcovering is nothing more than her hair. If
the hair were the “covering”" then an “uncovered”
woman would be a woman who already had her “hair cut
off.”
What verse 6 means is this: If the woman refuses
to wear a scarf or shawl (RAC), she should also remove
the natural covering, her hair. In other words, she should
wear both coverings or none at all (which is shameful).
!36
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Watchman Nee16 comments on this verse with a note of

sarcasm with these strong words: "Today people keep
neither of these two commands of the Bible. If a sister
will not cover her hair but shears or shaves it, she may
yet be reckoned as hearkening to the words of the Bible.
But today women neither shave nor cover their hair -- a
double disobedience.” (Watchman Nee, Love One
Another, Richmond, VA: Christian Fellowship Publ., 94.)
To imagine that the Apostle, who wrote over half
of the New Testament, would write in such a silly manner
is to insult both him and the Holy Spirit who inspired him
to write. Do you, my friend, really believe that Paul, who
was arguably the most educated of the Lordʼs apostles,
would actually write: “For if a woman have her hair
cut, let her also have her hair cut?”
If you, as I, do not think Paul would write in such a
manner, nor reason in such a silly way, then you must
agree that it is not long hair, but an artificial covering
which he is requiring of Christian women.
16Watchman Nee, or Ni Tuoseng, November 4, 1903 – May 30, 1972, Chinese

Modalist Christian teacher and church leader of the 20th century. Nee
established the first Local Church in Fuzhou in 1922. During the Communist
Revolution he was persecuted and arrested and imprisoned. He died in prison.
Found beneath his pillow in his prison cell was this note: “Christ is the Son of
God who died for the redemption of sinners and resurrected after three
days. This is the greatest truth in the universe. I die because of my belief in
Christ.” Watchman Nee
Books by Watchman Nee: The Spiritual Man (1928); Concerning Our Missions
(1939); The Song of Songs (1945); The Breaking of the Outer Man and the
Release of The Spirit (1950); The Normal Christian Life (1957); Sit, Walk, Stand
(1957); What Shall this Man Do? (1961); Love Not the World (1968)
!37
A woman who has cut her hair cannot be

commanded to cut her hair again. By replacing the key
words with the correct Greek definitions, the verse can be
clearly understood:
“For if the woman [appears without her head
veiled], let her also [cut off her hair]: but if it be a
shame for a woman to [have shortly cut hair] or
[hair shaved with a razor], let her [wear a veil on
her head.]”
Nothing in the passage means “hair” except the very
word, “hair,” itself, otherwise the Apostle was referring
to a woman’s veil.
It should be obvious from the above illustration
that the apostle Paul has an artificial headcovering in
view, and not the hair. The instructions are clear and
simple: If it is a shame for a woman to have her natural
covering, i.e. her hair, cut or shaved, then, she should not
remove her headcovering when in the assembly. Paul
simply said: “If you will not cut your hair off, do not
remove your veil.”
The apostle Paul teaches that women should wear
a covering, when prophesying or praying in the Christian
assembly. Furthermore, the Apostle tells us that all the
churches of Christ feel the same way, and have the same
practice and custom,
“But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have
no other practice, nor have the churches of
God” (1 Corinthians 11:16 NASB)
!38
Bishop Jerry Hayes
“... let her be covered.” ∼ From A. T. Robertson’s Word

Pictures of the Greek New Testament we read: “Let her
be veiled (katakaluptesqw). Present middle imperative
of old compound kata-kaluptw, here alone in N.T. Let
her cover up herself with the veil (down, kata, the Greek
says, the veil hanging down from the head).”
So, the phrase is present tense, middle voice, and
imperative mood. What does this all mean to the modern
Bible student doing an exegesis of this text? Well, this
much is certain:
Present Tense, means: present and continuing; the Greek:
“Let her be being veiled.”
Middle Voice, means: the subject performs or experiences
the action expressed by the verb in such a way that
emphasizes the subject's participation. It may be said that
the subject acts with a vested interest. “The middle calls
special attention to the subject ... the subject is acting in
relation to himself somehow" (Robertson, 804). The
Greek: “Let her (presently and continually) veil
herself.” (The Middle Voice militates against the covering
being hair, since the injunction is to cover oneself only
when praying or prophesying.)
Imperative Mood, means: the mood of intention. It is the
mood furthest removed from certainty. Ontologically, as
one of the potential or oblique moods, the imperative
moves into the realm of volition (involving the
imposition of one's will upon another) and possibility.
With the present (as here), the force generally is to
command the action as an ongoing process. The Greek:
!39
“I (Paul) command you to veil yourself, now and

continuously, when praying and/or prophesying.”
!40
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Chapter III
FOUR SPIRITUAL AND SCRIPTURAL
ARGUMENTS
(1 Corinthians 11: 7-10)
In verses 7 through 10
of 1 Corinthians 11 the
Apostle presents his argu-
mentation for the head-
covering, and the order of
headship that the head-
covering represents. As we
continue, it will become clear
to the reader that these
arguments are at once spiri-
tual and scriptural.
We will proceed in our
examination of this passage
by using verse 10 as the
pivotal point for the text:
“For this cause ought the woman to have power on her
head because of the angels” (verse 10).
A. “For This Cause.”
The statement “for this cause” is with the
accusative case in the Greek language, which indicates
the cause or reason of the act. The “act” in this situation
is that the women ought to be covered. “For this cause,”
refers to the preceding statements in verses 7 through 9,
!41
and also includes the cause given in verse 10; namely,

“because of the angels.” The Bible states in this passage
(verses 7-9) that the man, indeed, “Ought not to cover
his head for in as much as he is the image and glory of
God, but the woman is the glory of the man; for the
man is not of the woman but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman but the
woman for the man. For this cause ... because of the
angels.”
My friends, this is what the Bible is teaching. As
much as this may rub our fur the wrong way, or ruffle our
feathers, we must, as mature Christians, submit our
conscience to the Word of God.
As we look closely at these verses, there are four
arguments given in support for the injunction for the
Christian woman to have her head covered in the place of
meeting.
• Argument one: She is the glory of the man;
• Argument two: She was created from the man;
• Argument three: She was created for the benefit of
the man;
• Argument four: She should be covered because of
the angels.
We will proceed to examine these causes in a close
manner.
!42
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Argument one: The woman is the glory of the man

(verse 7).
Here, the apostle Paul writes that the Christian
woman is to have a covering on her head when in the
public meeting place, because she is the glory of the man.
The Apostle shows that just as man (Adam) was made in
the the image and glory of God—as Godʼs representative
—even so, the woman Eve, in turn, was made to be the
glory of man; that is, she is to be manʼs representative.
As the man is a representative of the glory and perfection
of God among all other creatures (so that the fear and
dread of him are on every beast of the field), so the
woman represents the power and the authority of man in
the home and society at large. Since man shows forth the
glory of God, it, therefore, follows that the woman shows
forth the glory of man.
The ministry of the woman to manifest the glory of
man is beautifully demonstrated in the name that Adam
gave her. He called her Eve: the “mother of all
living” (Genesis 3:20). Then we see how well the
preacher (Solomon) put it when he wrote, “Who can find
a virtuous woman? Her price is far above rubies, the
heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he
shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and
not evil all the days of her life. Her husband is known
in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the
land. ...Her own works praise her in the
gates” (Proverbs 31:10-12, 23, and 31b).
!43
The argument presented in verse 7, for the

Christian woman to have a symbol of her husbandʼs,
fatherʼs etc. authority (or headship) on her head, is as
follows: The glory of God (the man), should not be
veiled in the presence of God. To veil the glory of God
(the man) in the presence of God would be an acted out
contradiction. Therefore, by the same logic: The glory of
man (the woman) should be veiled in the presence of
God. That is, in the assembly where the believers are in
Godʼs presence (in a corporate manner), the glory of man
is not to be flaunted.
Argument two: The woman was created from the man;
or, the woman is from the man (Verse 8).
In this second argument the notion of principality
rests upon the fact of priority. That is to say: That which
is primary (first) must be the principal—that which is
authoritative. Man was created first, and as a result was
placed as the federal head of creation, by being the image
of the divine Dominion. The woman was made out of
man and was made superior to other creatures. Therefore,
she shines with the reflection of manʼs glory just as the
moon shines with the reflected glory of the sun. She
derives this honor from him (the man) out of whom she
was made; thereby, being subject to him. Adam Clark
stated it on this wise: “Paulʼs meaning is that the man
does not belong to the woman as if she was the principle
but the woman belongs to the man in that view.”
Argument three: The woman was created for the
benefit of man (verse 9).
!44
Bishop Jerry Hayes
From the Genesis record it is clear that man is the

origin of woman, and the reason for her creation. She
was created to be a helpmeet for him; so, she was
naturally made subject to him. She was made for him—
for his use—for his help—for his comfort. Because this
is true, she who was intended to be always subjected to
the man should do nothing in the Christian assembly that
gives the appearance of an affectation of authoritative
equality; such as removing her headcovering.
Now, on the simple merit of principal and
secondary creation the woman holds a second place to
man in Godʼs economy of order. It must be remembered
that this second place is not in human value, but in rank
only.
Moreover, apart from the arguments given above,
Eve solidified this position for her gender in the fall.
Notice the judgment pronounced upon the woman from
the month by Yahweh: “... your desire shall be to your
husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16).
Beloved, for these reasons Christian women should not
strive for an equality in rank: such as appearing in public
worship with uncovered heads.
One feels compelled to soften what may sound
harsh to modern ears by saying (repeatedly) that there is
no superiority nor inferiority in the humanity between
men and women. But, this superiority and inferiority is
only in the headship, or in the rank which each gender
holds within the Church and the Christian family, and by
extension—society at large.
!45
At this point we will go further into 1 Corinthians

11:10 by examining the next statement.
Argument four: Because of the angels.
When the apostle Paul
writes on the subject of
headship, one of the reasons
that he gives for the Christian
woman to wear a head-
covering in the public
assembly is “because of the
angels.” Since the apostle did
not specify what category of
angels, we must assume that
all categories are intended.
There are two primary
categories with which we are interested: the angels of
God, and the fallen angels.
In Paulʼs teaching of headship we are instructed
that the head of Christ is God, the head of man is Christ,
and the head of the woman is the man (1 Corinthians
11:3). We are further told, that in public worship a man is
to be uncovered, while a woman is to have her head
covered (which serves) to demonstrate to the angels (both
un-fallen and fallen) that she resides under a protective
covering.
When the angels of God (who are ministering
spirits [Hebrews 1:14], and who are present in great
numbers in the Christian assemblies in a very special way
!46
Bishop Jerry Hayes
(Hebrews 12:22, Psalms 138:1]), see the Christian

woman covered, it speaks to them of order and delegated
authority. However, when Christian women are witnessed
being unveiled, angels would be shocked at such conduct
since the angels, themselves, veil their faces before
Yahweh (Isa 6:2). Therefore, it directly affects their
attitude in ministering on behalf of the saints of God.
This is particularly true since man and woman, as
husband and wife, serve to represent Christ and His
church (Ephesians 5:22-32 17). The angels of God have
known only one primary sin: namely, the violation of
headship (Isaiah 14:13-14; and see Ezekiel 28:13ff),
where Lucifer cast aside his covering (i.e. the precious
stones of the earth), and transgressed headship by
exalting his throne to be equal to Godʼs. On the other
hand, when the angels of God view Christian women
uncovered, it speaks to them of rebellion and a disregard
for created order. This, also, directly affects their attitude
17 Eph 5:22-32 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as

unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ
is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore
as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own
husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ
also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify
and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might
present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any
such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought
men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth
himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and
cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his
body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave
his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two
shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning
Christ and the church.
!47
of ministry to the Church. Rebellion against Godʼs

created order of headship was the original sin, and
ministering angels cannot help but be adversely affected
when they witness the same transgression in the body of
Christ.
Hebrews tells us that we are surrounded by
heavenly beings who are bearing witness to the lives we
live. So, as a consequence, we must be watchful how we
run our race, for in the stands the heavenly hosts are
witnessing the contest:
“Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by
so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside
every weight, and the sin which so easily
ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the
race that is set before us” (Hebrews 12:1).
Running counter to the angels of God, are the
fallen angels. When these lieutenants of Perdition prowl
about the assembly of the righteous, spying out the weak
ones upon whom to prey, it is an effective defense for the
Christian woman that she be seen with a covered head;
thereby, giving testimony to these fallen angels that she
resides under a spiritual covering of protection. The
fallen Angels are put on notice, by such a display on the
part of the Christian woman, that she cannot be touched,
cannot be spiritually seduced, without first penetrating
her male covering.
It was not Adam that was deceived, but Eve. It
seems that a woman has a natural tendency to be easily
!48
Bishop Jerry Hayes
led astray. The Bible student cannot easily ignore what

Paul wrote to his son Timothy in 1 Timothy 2: 11-14.
There, the Apostle writes: “Let the woman learn in
silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to
teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in
silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And
Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived
was in the transgression.” Here, the apostle Paul is
putting a prohibition on a womanʼs role in public
teaching and preaching. He basis the restriction on
Genesis chapters 2 and 3. The appeal to the creation
account makes the restrictions universal and permanent.
1. “Adam was first formed.” Paul appeals to the priority
of Adam in creation, which predates the fall. Thus he
views the man/woman relationship set forth in this
passage as grounded in creation. This reason militates
against those who would argue that since the new birth
reverses the curses of the fall, there is no distinction
between the roles of men and women in the Kingdom of
God.
2. “The woman being deceived.” Paul argues that since
the woman was deceived (and then led Adam astray), she
is not to be entrusted with the teaching function of a
bishop (or elder) in the public worship services of the
assembled church. Of course this prohibition is qualified
by the same Apostleʼs teaching in 1 Corinthians 11,
where we are told that the Christian woman may, indeed,
pray and preach in the public assembly, IF she does so
under her covering; by which she demonstrates to all
!49
(human and angel alike) that she ministers in a delegated

role under male supervision.
Therefore, the tendency of the woman to be easily
deceived makes her an easy target for the dark side of the
spiritual world. The denominational Christian landscape
is dotted with Christian (so-called) organizations founded
by women who were seduced by lying spirits. So, the
teaching of the New Testament that a woman wear a
headcovering within the assembly is not only her badge
of authority (to function on equal footing with her male
counterpart, in prophesying and praying), but, is also her
shield, which protects her from fallen angels that have a
history of seducing human women, both physically
(Genesis 6:1-218 ) and spiritually (Genesis 3:1-619 ).
18 Gen 6:1-2 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the
face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of
God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them
wives of all which they chose.
19Gen 3: 1-6 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field
which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath
God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman
said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath
said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the
serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth
know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and
ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw
that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and
a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and
did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
!50
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Chapter IV
OUGHT THE WOMAN TO HAVE
POWER ON HER HEAD
(1 Corinthian 11:10)
“Ought The Woman”

Previously, we looked
at the statement from
verse 10 “for this
cause,” and there we
found four causes; here
we examine the next
statement, “ought the
woman.” These three simple words from verse 10 inform
us that there is a moral devoir that rests on women to
maintain a dress code that does not apply to the men (see
v7). In this case Christian women are morally obligated
before God to display a symbol of their rank in Godʼs
economy of order. From verse 10 we learn that the
women “ought” to do the very thing that verse 7 says the
men “ought not” to do: namely, cover their heads when
praying or prophesying.
(As a “by the by,” the “ought not” of verse 7 and
the “ought ” of verse 10 serve to illustrate that hair is not
the covering being required by the Apostle. Men “ought
not” to cover their heads when praying or prophesying,
the Apostle writes. Is the Apostle saying: Men “ought
!51
not” to grow hair long before praying or prophesying? As

if that would be possible. Further, is the Apostle
instructing the Christian women that they, on the other
hand, “ought” to, indeed, grow their hair long upon
entering the assembly to pray or prophesy? As if they
could. In that the covering is required only in the
assembly when praying or prophesying, and not required
otherwise, militates against the covering being hair.
Simple reasoning would lay the hair issue to rest, if one
were honest.)
In Ephesians 5:28-32 the Apostle Paul draws a
parallel between a husband and wife, and Christ and his
Church. In this apostolic teaching the man represents
Christ, and the woman represents the Church. Therefore,
each gender of the Lordʼs congregation has a moral
obligation to manifest Christ and his Church to the world
at large. The Bible tells us that we are living epistles read
of all men (2 Corinthians 3:220). The world may never
read the Holy Scripture, but they see and read the
Christian life every day. So then, just as the Church is to
be in submission to Christ (her head), so is the Christian
woman to be in submission to her male head (her
husband in particular). She should demonstrate this in her
life, but particularly in the assembly of the saints.
The church must practice scriptural order; only by
doing this can the angels (who are ministering spirits sent
forth from God to minister in behalf of those who are
2 Cor 3:2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all
20
men:
!52
Bishop Jerry Hayes
heirs of salvation [Hebrews 1:1421]) minister in the

fashion heaven intends. The Scripture teaches clearly that
women are to have a covering over their heads “because
of the angels.” If we desire the angels to minister TO US
on heavenʼs behalf and TO HEAVEN in our behalf, then
we must exercise the order of headship that God,
Himself, has placed in the Church through His faithful
apostle: Paul.
“To Have Power On Her Head”
Here we come to the central statement of the text.
The woman is to have “power on her head.” What could
such a statement mean?
Now, admittedly the King James Version (KJV)
has a difficult rendering at this place for modern English
speaking people—because of its attempt to give a word-
for-word rendering of the
Greek. Therefore, one
should considered a
thought-to-thought
translation of the original
language. When the apostle
said “to have power...,” the
Greek word is “exousian;”
21 Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for
them who shall be heirs of salvation?
!53
it is a biblical idiom22 which has the sense in the Greek:

“to have a symbol of authority” (semeian exousias).
The phrase, from the KJV, “to have power on her
head because of the angels” is a biblical idiom. (An
idiom is “an expression that cannot be understood from
the meanings of its separate words but that has a
separate meaning of its own” [Merriam Webster];
examples of American idioms are: kick the bucket or
hang one's head.) When Bible teachers attempt to
interpret such passages without understanding the idiom,
a wrong interpretation is unavoidable. Recently, in
Oneness Pentecostal circles just such a misinterpretation
has become popular—for just this reason. “Power on
her head” is taught as just that—“power on her head.” It
is being taught by such popular Pentecostal personalities
as Lee Stoneking, that a woman’s long, uncut, hair (on
her actual head) is actual “power” with God through the
Angels. Women are encouraged to unpin their long hair
and drape it over the sick and infirm for healing power.
Christian households are assured of divine protection
because of the power “on” the mothers’ and daughters’
22 idiom: noun
1.an expression whose meaning is not predictable from the usual
meanings of its constituent elements, as kick the bucket or hang one's
head, or from the general grammatical rules of a language, as the table
round for the round table, and that is not a constituent of a larger
expression of like characteristics.
2.a language, dialect, or style of speaking peculiar to a people.
3.a construction or expression of one language whose parts correspond
to elements in another language but whose total structure or meaning is
not matched in the same way in the second language.
4.the peculiar character or genius of a language.
!54
Bishop Jerry Hayes
heads, in the form of their long, uncut, hair. Divine

wisdom is said to be passed on from the wife to the father
because of the “power on her head” (i.e. long, uncut,
hair). The author is third generation Oneness Pentecostal,
and gives testimony that this is an innovation to Oneness
Pentecost teaching that was never mentioned in his
youth, nor in his early ministry. As an innovation, it
violates the the Scriptural command to not add to, nor
take away from, God’s Word:
Deuteronomy 4:2
“You shall not add to the word which I command you,
neither shall ye diminish ought from it, ...”
Revelation 22:18, 19
“For I testify to every man that hears the words of the
prophecy of this book, if any man shall add to these
words, God add to him the plagues that are written in
this book: and if any man shall take away from the
words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
his part from the book of life, and out of the holy city,
and from the things which are written in this book.”
And also:
Deuteronomy 12:32
“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it:
thou shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”
Then, again:
Proverbs 30:6
“Add not to his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be
found a liar.”
!55
As is evident from the above texts, such an

innovation is a sin, and those teaching it are not teaching
truth.
This author witnessed Lee Stoneking teach this
very error in his sermon entitled “The Order of
Creation.” The authority for teaching resident “power”
on the Christian woman’s head is arrived at by a literal
interpretation of the phrase: “power on her head.”
Stoneking went systematically from word to word giving
each word’s meaning from the dictionary. When he was
finished he strung the definitions together and arrived at
his thesis statement. What follows is a transcription from
Stoneking’s sermon “The Order of Creation” at about
minute 32:20,
“I want to work with ought, power and
because.
“The word ‘ought,’ in the Greek means: owe, or
be indebted;
“The word ‘power’ in the Greek means, the
ability, authority, rule;
“The Word ‘because’ in the Greek means,
through, by, or with.
“So, what this verse is actually saying,
therefore, ‘The woman is indebted, or owes
her authority on her head, through, by, or
with Angels.’ The word ‘power’—the original
meaning, the ability to perform an act, the
right, the authority, (this is incredible, this is
!56
Bishop Jerry Hayes
incredible) and, the permission conferred by a

higher court—permission conferred by a higher
court.
“‘For this cause the woman is owing or
indebted to the inward power which is
conferred upon her by a higher court with
the Angels.’
“That is what that verse is saying.”
Now, Stoneking has done with an idiom exactly
what cannot be done. He has defined (sic) each word, and
arrives at his thesis from those definitions. This is an
impossible hermeneutic 23 for an idiom. Remember
Merriam Webster: “an expression that cannot be
understood from the meanings of its separate words but
that has a separate meaning of its own.”
Understanding the Idiom
One would do well to consider this phrase (“power
on her head”) from a number of other translations of the
Bible. (Keep in mind that Bible translators must be
familiar with the idioms of the language they are
translating.) Given here is a sampling to consider:
• Todayʼs English Version of the Bible translates: “...
have a covering over her head to show she is under her
husbandʼs authority.”
23 hermeneutic: the study of the methodological principles of interpreta-

tion (as of the Bible) 2. a method or principle of interpretation
!57
• Philips Modern English Version of the Bible translates:

“... to bear on her head an outward sign of manʼs
authority.”
• New American Standard Bible translates: “... therefore
the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her
head.”
• The Amplified Bible translates: “Therefore she should
[be subject to his authority and should] have a covering
on her head [as a token, a symbol, of her submission to
authority, that she may show reverence as do] the
angels [and not displease them].”
The reading of “power on her head” from the KJV
is awkward, and provides an opportunity for
misinterpretation by the unlearned, as we have witnessed.
However, as we have also seen, the readings from other
respected versions of God’s Word clears up the confusion
very quickly. But there is another problem with the “long,
uncut, hair” crowd: Their unwillingness to accept New
Testament Greek scholarship, and their determined
fidelity to the twentieth century American innovation that
is but three generations in the making (long, uncut hair as
Paul’s required covering). Because modern English
versions of the Bible remove the ambiguous readings of
the A.D. 1611 King James Version, which allows a
certain amount of misinterpretations, those who hold
dogmatically to the required covering of 1 Corinthians
11: 3-16 being long, uncut, hair seem bound, even
chained, to the KJV for perpetuity.
!58
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Going back to the King James Version rendering,

the word “power” is, of course, the Greek word
“exousian” and means, authority. (The Greek schalor A.
T. Robertson writes:
“To have a sign of authority (exousian echein).
He means sēmeion exousia (symbol of authority)
by exousian, but it is the sign of authority of the
man over the woman. The veil on the woman's
head is the symbol of the authority that the man
with the uncovered head has over her. ... .”)
This strange rendering is, nonetheless, biblical. The
biblical idiom is visible throughout the Scripture. This
particular idiom is visible whenever the symbol of the
principle is often named as the principle itself. Therefore,
the headcovering is here called the “power” or
“authority” that the Christian woman is to manifest.
Many examples can be found throughout the Word of
God where the symbol of a thing is actually called by the
name of the thing that it symbolizes. Included here are
three examples:
1. The act of circumcision is actually called “the
covenant” (Genesis 17:10-1324), when in reality it is
24 Gen 17:10-13 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me

and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be
circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it
shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is
eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your
generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any
stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he
that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my
covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
!59
the symbol of the covenant. Therefore, the phrase

“the covenant,” in this passage, is an idiom for
circumcision.
2. The lamb slain at the time of Passover is actually
called “the passover” (Exodus 12:2125), when in truth
it is but the symbol of all that the Passover entailed.
Therefore, the phrase, “the passover,” in this passage,
is an idiom for the actual lamb.
3. In our present case (1 Corinthians 11:10) “power on
her head” means that the Christian woman is to
display on her head a sign or token that she is under
the authority of her male head. Therefore, the phrase
“power on her head” is an idiom for a cloth veil
(RAC) on her head.
25Ex 12:21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto
them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill
the passover.
!60
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Chapter V
HEADCOVERING IS ONLY A
SYMBOL
It should be pointed out at this place in our study

that Yahweh is very serious about the symbols which He
has established for His people. They must not simply be
ignored. We only need to think of Moses and the smitten
rock (Numbers 20:7-11 26). Moses was not permitted to
enter the promised land because he failed to maintain
Godʼs symbol. Then there is the story of Nadad and
Abihu and the offering of strange fire upon the altar
(Leviticus 10:127). They were killed because an important
symbol of true worship was defiled. One should consider
the blood of the Passover lamb (Exodus 12:728); the rite
26 Nu 20:7-11 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 8 Take the rod,
and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and
speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water,
and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give
the congregation and their beasts drink. 9 And Moses took the rod from
before the Lord, as he commanded him. 10 And Moses and Aaron
gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto
them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?
11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock
twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank,
and their beasts also.
27 Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them
his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered
strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not.
28Ex 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye
shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goat:
!61
of circumcision (Genesis 17:1029); the bread and the

wine of the Lordʼs Supper (Luke 22:19-2030); the oil of
anointing (James 5:1431); the waters of baptism (Romans
6:432 ); and last, but not least, the headcovering of the
Christian woman (1 Corinthians 11:1-16). All of these
things, just mentioned, are symbols that God
incorporated into His kingdom to teach certain truths and
principles. It will be acknowledged by all that God was
very particular concerning the symbols of His principles;
so much so, that when they were violated Godʼs
judgment was demonstrated upon the symbol breakers.
For instance, in the matter of the smitten rock,
neither Moses nor Aaron were permitted to enter the
promised land. When Nadab and Abihu offered strange
fire upon the altar (which was only a symbol that
reflected a principle for the people of God), God killed
them because they failed to keep His symbol. The blood
of the Passover lamb had to be applied to the door post a
certain way; it was only a symbol, yet God was particular
29 Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and

you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be
circumcised.
30Luke 22:19-20 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and
gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in
remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This
cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
31 Jas 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the
church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of
the Lord:
32 Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that
like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,
even so we also should walk in newness of life.
!62
Bishop Jerry Hayes
about His symbol, and brought judgment upon those that

neglected it. The rite of circumcision was only a
symbolic act; yet, God is very particular about the rite of
circumcision; so much so, that the angel of the Lord was
prepared to slay the son of Moses because he had not
been circumcised (Exodus 4:25 33). The bread and wine
of the Lordʼs Supper are symbols. Yet, when not partaken
of in proper faith (discerning the real presence),
believers become sick, and some even die, because they
mishandle Godʼs symbols, and become “guilty of the
body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27-30).
The oil of anointing and the waters of baptism.... All of
these are symbols that God holds sacred.
Just as these symbols could not be abused without
Godʼs judgment, so too, the Christian symbol of
headcovering must not be ignored, nor be treated in a
cavalier manner, lest the Church come into judgement.
Therefore, the crux of the matter is this: the Lord
God has placed symbols into the economy of His
Kingdom to teach certain principles. These symbols are
so important to God that judgment is brought upon those
who do not observe them, or who observe them in a
disrespectful manner. When Jesus was asked about
certain forms of New Covenant life in Matthew 9:17
(with parallel passages at Mark 2:22 and Luke 5:37-38),
He introduced the parable of Wine and Wine Skins.
33Ex 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of
her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art
thou to me.
!63
Obviously, in this parable it is the wine that is important;

however, the wine (the biblical principle) is put into
wineskins to preserve it. The wineskin, represents the
symbol which teaches and preserves the biblical principle
of New Covenant life. Evidently, the principle is the
important thing, and it is Godʼs intention to preserve it.
The Churchʼs mission is to keep and practice all New
Covenant principles. In our text of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16
the biblical principle is headship; the symbol (or
wineskin), which the Holy Spirit has given the Church to
teach and preserve headship, is headcovering for
Christian women.
!64
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Chapter VI
Badge of Authority
Another consideration for the statement “power on

her head” is that of authority. The symbol of the
headcovering, in this view, becomes the Christian
womanʼs badge of au-
thority to function in a
public worship service on
an equal footing with her
male counterpart. She gives
a witness, by her covering,
that she speaks under the
authority of her male head;
either her father, her
husband, her older brother,
or, even, her pastor. The
headcovering, then,
becomes her power to speak. For that is the subject here:
i.e. praying and prophesying. The idea is: leading in
public prayer, and preaching (prophesying) before the
congregation.
This particular concept of the Christian womanʼs
authority (to function in a public meeting on an equal par
with her male counterpart) will go a long way in
explaining 1 Corinthians 14:34 which has been a thorn
in the flesh for modern Christians.
!65
“Let your women keep silence in the churches:

for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but
they are commanded to be under obedience, as
also saith the law.” (1 Corinthians 14:34)
This passage (which seems to prohibit a woman
from speaking in the assembly), when interpreted in light
of the headcovering text (1Corinthians 11: 1-16), is seen
to be a qualified censorship placed upon women in public
worship. Therefore, the teaching of the word of God is
that a woman is not to speak in/on her own right, but only
as a delegated representative. If a woman removes her
headcovering and speaks in a public assembly she is
declaring that she stands in the place of God, and speaks
as His oracle. It would be presumptuous of a Christian
woman to declare, by a bare head, that she is speaking in
Godʼs stead. That the man may, and does, speak as the
oracle of God is seen in 2 Corinthians 5:20 where Paul
states, “we beseech you in Godʼs stead.” The bare head
of a man, who is speaking in the assembly, represents the
glory of God being manifested (1 Corinthians 11:7);
therefore the man stands in Godʼs place to the assembly.
If a woman speaks in the assembly with an uncovered
head she is declaring that she speaks as the mouthpiece
(oracle) of God. Paulʼs instructions are that this is never
to be done. A woman may speak as long as she
demonstrates, by her covering, that she is speaking in a
delegated role; in her husbandʼs stead, her fatherʼs stead,
her pastorʼs stead. I call your attention to 1 Corinthians
11:5, “but every woman that prays or prophesies with
!66
Bishop Jerry Hayes
her head uncovered dishonors her head: for that is even

all one as if she were shaved.”
Mr. F. F. Bruce (revered Greek scholar) observes
that, “the covering is a sign for her (the Christian
woman) authority to speak in the place of meeting.”
Thus, we see that, in Christ, women have achieved a
higher position than they held under the law. In the
synagogue services the woman played no significant part
at all. Her presence could not even suffice to make up the
requisite quorum of ten to establish a minyan. A minyan
is made up of ten Jewish men; which number is required
before any public meeting can be held—females do not
count. However, in Christ there is a sense in which the
female has received a status equal to the male in public
worship, if, indeed, she displays a covered head. Now,
with this badge of authorization (i.e. her covered head)
she also could pray, could prophesy, could move in the
gifts of the Spirit—in the churchʼs meetings.
Qualified Prohibition
One cannot ignore the parallel between 1
Corinthians 11:3-16 and 14:34 which was discussed
above. In addition, we cannot neglect the parallel found
between these two passages and 1 Timothy 2: 1-14 when
we consider the subject of women speaking within the
public assembly.
!67
1 Timothy 2:1-14
1) Therefore I exhort first of all that
supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of
thanks be made for all men, 2) for kings and all who
are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable
life in all godliness and reverence. 3) For this is good
and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4) who
desires all men to be saved and to come to the
knowledge of the truth. 5) For there is one God and one
Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
6) who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in
due time, 7) for which I was appointed a preacher and
an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not
lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
8) I desire therefore that men pray everywhere,
lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9) in
like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in
modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with
braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing,
10) but, which is proper for women professing
godliness, with good works. 11) Let a woman learn in
silence with all submission. 12) And I do not permit a
woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to
be in silence. 13) For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being
deceived, fell into transgression. (NKJV)
The focus of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is actually

headship; the womanʼs authority to speak in the public
!68
Bishop Jerry Hayes
assembly was used to sharpen that focus. Women could

not speak in the Church meeting (1 Corinthians 14:34),
except (I want to emphasize this: “except”) they were
adorned in a prescribed manner (1 Corinthians 11:3-16).
By this prescribed adorning they demonstrated sub-
mission to their head. Likewise in 1 Timothy 2:1-14 the
crux of the discussion is headship. In this passage (verses
11-12) Paul instructs that the women are to learn in
silence with all subjection, “for I suffer a woman not to
teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in
silence.” Now, as we consider this text we must
remember to temper, or to qualify, Paulʼs instructions,
here, with 1 Corinthians 11: 3-16, where he gives the
circumstances under which a woman may speak in the
assembly. Through these passages the fact of male
headship is demonstrated by the circumstances under
which a woman is authorized to speak in the church. Just
as the womanʼs adorning is a witness to her submission
in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, the same is true in 1 Timothy
2:9-11. The parallel here is further validated as we note
that both passages provide the same rationale for male
headship. In other words, 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 says:
“for the man is not of the woman but the woman of the
man.” The parallel in 1 Timothy 2:11-13 says, “for
Adam was first formed then Eve.” So, we see a clear
parallel here.
Further, Paul instructed Timothy that women adorn
themselves with shamefacedness (1 Timothy 2:9). There
is little doubt that the adorning of headcovering would
!69
have been included in the injunction of

“shamefacedness.” Without doubt, to cover the head is a
demonstration of humility. This adorning of humility has
been illustrated in two dramatic occasions in the Old
Testament: 2 Samuel 15:3034 (King Davidʼs ascent of the
Mt. Olivet as he retreated from Absalom) and Jeremiah
14:2-435 (Israel in a time of drought); in both of these
passages the head is covered to show humility. Then
coming to the New Testament, the apostle Paul instructs
Timothy that a woman adorn herself in a manner which
demonstrates a humble look. So, here is taught by the
Apostle, and supported by Old Testament illustrations, an
adorning to demonstrate humility and submission.
34 2 Sam 15:30 And David went up by the ascent of mount Olivet, and
wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot:
and all the people that was with him covered every man his head, and
they went up, weeping as they went up.
35 Jer 14:2-4 Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are
black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up. 3 And their
nobles have sent their little ones to the waters: they came to the pits, and
found no water; they returned with their vessels empty; they were
ashamed and confounded, and covered their heads. 4 Because the
ground is chapt, for there was no rain in the earth, the plowmen were
ashamed, they covered their heads.
!70
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Chapter VII
REASONING TOGETHER
(Verses 13 - 16)
After enjoining head-

covering in verses 3 through
6, and following up in verses
7 through 10 with four
spiritual and scriptural
arguments to support his
apostolic edict, then after
softening his teaching on
headcovering with the state-
ments of verses 11 through 12
(“Nevertheless, neither is the
man without the woman,
neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as
the woman is of the man [a reference to v8], even so is
the man also by the woman [every man has a mother];
but all things of God”), Paul reasons for headcovering
from three areas of their physical world:
1. Their conscience: verse 13;

2. The nature of things: verses 14, 15; and
3. Christian society: verse 16.
!71
A. Reasoning from Conscience: Verse 13.

“Judge in yourselves.”
Paul has now moved into a third stage of his
presentation: he is reasoning with the Corinthians from
their natural world.
The Corinthians are being challenged by their
Apostle to look inwardly, and take counsel from their
conscience. They are being asked to acknowledge their
better judgment. Paul had confidence that the departure
from headship had not yet taken root in their heart to the
degree that the voice of their conscience had been totally
silenced. So, he admonishes them to “Judge in
yourselves: is it comely...” (Greek: prepo, to be suitable
or proper; Strongʼs #OT4241) “that a woman pray unto
God uncovered.” Paul was confident that they would
reason that such an act would be inappropriate behavior.
They had not thought it through, in Paulʼs mind. “Calm
down and think,” Paul is saying. Is it proper? Is it even
decent? He is asking. He was confident that they knew
the right answer in their knower; and, would, if given the
chance, reason it through.
However, Paulʼs question hits hard and lays bare
the nerve concerning women praying at all (in or out of
the assembly) without covered heads. His words seem to
put the women, who would dare come before God with
uncovered heads, in a place of un-comeliness in the eyes
of the Almighty. All I can say about that is this: the
context of Chapter 11 is the public meeting of the
believers. I, in good conscience, cannot require head-
!72
Bishop Jerry Hayes
covering outside the assembly, or for private prayer.

However, if a sister in Christ feels bound by her
conscience to cover her head in private prayer, or even as
a constant covering from rising to retiring each day,
because of the weight of this verse, I surely believe she
will have the pleasure of her Lord.
B. Reasoning from Nature: Verses 14 and 15.
“Doth not even nature itself teach you...”
It is only here that hair is introduced into the
subject as a covering; and, only as an illustration of the
correctness for a mandatory artificial covering.
It is sad that a lack of education and sound
reasoning has led so many to teach the illustration as the
object it has been introduced to illustrate.
Just as Paul asked the Corinthians to reason from
their conscience, he here asks them to reason with him
from the very nature of their lives. Paul is asking, “What
does nature teach you? Does not nature say, “If a man
have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman
have long hair it is a glory unto her.” (The Revised
Standard Version reads: “it is her pride.”) These things,
Paul is saying, are taught to you by nature.
Here, Paul speaks of the nature of humans in
general. He does NOT have Christian men and women in
view only. He is saying that it is natural for men to have
short hair. We may extrapolate from his reasoning that
men are the workers and warriors of society; therefore,
long hair would not be conducive to their natural roles.
!73
On the other hand, women are the softer sex; whose hair
is a sexual adornment (“it is a glory to her”); and, as
such she adorns herself with it and employs her long hair
in her relationship with the male gender. Paul speaks here
to the nature of the heart, and the natural usage of the
hair.
His point is that the “hair is given” (to the woman)
“for a covering.” The Greek actually reads: γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν
κομᾷ δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν; ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου
δέδοται [αὐτῇ]. The phrase “ἀντὶ περιβολαίου” is
transliterated: anti peribolaiou; English translation:
“instead of a covering;” it is so rendered in Y o u n g ’ s
Literal Translation (YLT): “... and a woman, if she have
long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of
a covering hath been given to her;... . ” A. T. Robertson
says, concerning “anti peribolaiou:”
“... Old word from periballw to fling around, as a
mantle (Hebrews 1:12) or a covering or veil as
here. It is not in the place of a veil, but answering
to (anti, in the sense of anti in John 1:16 ), ... .”
Robertson cites John 1:16 as an example of how “anti”
is to be understood in our text. John 1:16 says: καὶ
χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος· (kai charin anti charitos); English:
“and grace for grace.” So, then, the hair “answers
to” (Robertson) the veil: it (the hair) “answers,” in the
natural arena, to what the veil is in the religious arena.
Regardless of the clear teaching of the Greek
scholars on the word “anti” such Bible teachers as Daniel
!74
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Segraves, in his book entitled Hair Length in the Bible,

employes his preferred definition of “anti” and states on
page 37, “Long, uncut hair is given to a woman instead
of a veil.” Using, as he does, the literal wording from the
Greek, with no consideration given to the idiom that all
scholars recognize on the word “anti.” Gingrich’s
Shorter Lexicon of the Greek NT, p17, states the
definitions for “anti” as: “for, AS, in place of.” But,
Segraves totally omits “AS”—the meaning that fits the
context. This is also the definition found in Arndt and
Strong’s G4018 περιβόλαιον peribolaion per-ib-

ol’-ah-yon
Neuter of a presumed derivative of G4016;
something thrown around one, that is, a mantle,
veil: – covering, vesture.
Total KJV Occurrences: 2
covering, 1-1Co_11:15, vesture, 1-Heb_1:12
Thayer’s Definition:
1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper
1a) a mantle
1b) a veil
Gingrich, p73, and A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the

NT. Here, “anti” does not refer to a replacement but to an
equivalent. This phrase indicates equivalency. Therefore,
“anti” is a word of COMPARISON. In Ephesians 5 Paul
uses “anti” to teach how a man and wife are TYPED to
Christ and the Church. The “anti” used in v15 does not
!75
mean “instead of” but “COMPARED TO,” because long

hair is LIKE a veil—it SYMBOLIZES a veil. The French
language Louis Segond Bible of 1910 translates the
“anti” in v15: “...la chevelure lui a ete donnee comme
voile,” or “...the hair is given to her LIKE a veil.”
The noun peribolaion is from “peri” to throw or
cast, and “bollō” around. Used but twice in the New
Testament: here, and Hebrews 1:12 where it is translated
“vesture.” Thus, something thrown around one, such as a
veil (Robertson, Strong, Thayer). It is the peribolaion of
verse 15, and not the hair, that identifies the katakalupto
(covering) of verses 4, 5, 6, and 7. The peribolaion is not
the hair, it “answers” (anti) to the hair, as grace
“answers” (anti) to grace (John 1:16, Robertson). In
Robertson’s paralleling of 1 Corinthians 11:15 with
John 1:16, in relation to the Greek word “anti,” it is
understood that hair does not replace the peribolaion any
more than one grace replaces another grace. The graces
(gifts) of God compliment, and compound, one another,
as does the Christian woman’s long hair and the veil that
she “casts about” her head, when in prayer or moving in
the spiritual gifts during the corporate meeting of the
Church.
There are two coverings referenced in our passage:
the “peribolaion” (verse 15) which is the “kataka-lupto”
(verses 5, 6, 7, and 13): a veil, or wrap, that a woman is
to “cast about here head” when she prays or prophesies,
but a man “ought not” to put on his head when he prays
or prophesies [verse 7]; and the long hair that the woman
!76
Bishop Jerry Hayes
is given by God as a natural mantle or wrap for her head

(which “answers to,” and complements, the required
peribolaion)—to be used as her adornment, and a display
of her glory. The point made here, is that, just as the hair
represents her proper covering in the natural realm, so the
veil is the Christian woman’s proper covering in the
spiritual realm.
Paul is saying: “It is the nature of men to cut off
their hair, and the nature of women to let their hair grow
long.” If, then, the woman, by the nature of her own heart
covers herself with hair, what the Apostle is enjoining is
in harmony with nature and not contrary to it. So, the
reasoning goes like this: “Women, if you, by nature cover
your heads (with hair), then you can understand the
Churchʼs requirement of a religious article of clothing.”
Concerning this matter, John Chrysostom writes:
“‘And if it be given her for a covering,’ say you,
‘wherefore need she add another covering?’
That not nature only, but also her own will may
have part in her acknowledgment of
subjection. For that thou oughtest to be
covered nature herself by anticipation enacted
a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also,
that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very
laws of nature; a proof of most insolent
rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with
nature also.”36
36 John Chrysostom , Homily XXVI (347-407)
!77
The Apostle is not teaching that a womanʼs hair is

the covering taught in verses 3 through 13, as verse 6
more than adequately proves. He is reasoning with the
Corinthian women concerning the artificial headcovering,
and masterfully employing their long hair as his
illustration. It is a mistake (and very poor exegesis) to
teach hair as the required covering.
C. Reasoning From Christian Society: Verse 16
“But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no
such custom, neither the churches of God.”
Because we are presenting this lesson from the
King James Version of the Bible, verse 16 is given from
that translation.
The KJV rendering of this verse is unfortunate for
the twenty-first century English reader. What was plain
and clear Elizabethan English of the seventeenth century
is quite difficult for the modern English speaking person.
So, I beg the readers’ indulgence as I give the rendering
of this verse from the New American Standard Bible,
New International Version, and The Amplified Bible:
New American Standard Bible
“... if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other
practice, nor have the churches of God.”
New International Version
“If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have
no other practice—nor do the churches of God.”
The Amplified Bible
“Now if anyone is disposed to be argumentative and
!78
Bishop Jerry Hayes
contentious about this, we hold to and recognize no

other custom [in worship] than this, nor do the
churches of God generally.”
“We have no custom of permitting anyone to be
contentious or argumentative concerning this injunc-
tion,” is what the KJV is conveying; and was, in fact,
clearly understood in the seventeenth century.
The Corinthians are challenged with the prospect
of being out of harmony with the universal body of
Christ: “The churches of God follow the same rule,”
Paul writes. He reasons with them in this manner: “To
take a path contrary to all other churches of God will put
you sociably out of step with Christian society.”
In this third stage of Paulʼs discourse (see Chapter
One “Outline” page 10) he has reasoned with them from
three areas of their life: their conscience, the nature of
their very existence, and the social standing within the
universal body of Christ.
From all three of these arenas it is reasoned that
headcovering should be practiced in the church, so that
the principle of headship may be protected and
maintained in the body of Christ. Paul is operating under
the Lordʼs mandate of: “Whatsoever you bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose all
the earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18).
Chapter VIII
!79
ANSWERING THE MOST POPULAR

OBJECTION
(Culture)
Objection of Culture:
“Paulʼs teaching on headcovering is cultural, and
was required of the Corinthians’ because it was part of
their culture. In western society
where headcovering is not part of
our culture, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16
has no practical application.”
Our response to this objection
would be to simply ask: “Do the
imperatives of Godʼs Word change
from culture to culture?” Of course
the answer to this is, “Certainly
not.”
The Bible is a legal document which makes legal
demands upon those who would adopt it as the rule of
faith. These demands cross cultures, civilizations, and
creeds. Its precepts are binding upon all who would
accept the Christian faith, regardless of the norms of any
culture. Christians are citizens of the New Jerusalem, and
by virtue of that citizenship are obliged to live out their
lives according to the rules and laws of their heavenly
kingdom, no matter what earthly country or culture of
man they may find themselves. We are citizens of the
heavenly kingdom that has its own culture, which culture
!80
Bishop Jerry Hayes
we must adapt with alacrity. Having said that, we would

ask: “What part of Paulʼs injunction can be said to be
culturally bound to the first century Greek speaking
people of Corinth?”
The apostle gave four spiritual and scriptural
arguments why Christian men “ought not to cover” their
heads when praying or prophesying, and Christian
women “ought to cover” their heads when doing the
same.
• Argument one: Woman is the glory of the man
(verse 7); “For a man indeed ought not to cover his
head, since he is the image and glory of God; but
woman is the glory of man.”
• Argument two: Woman was created from the man;
(verse 8); “For man is not from woman, but woman
from man.”
• Argument three: Woman was created for the benefit
of the man (verse 9); “Nor was man created for the
woman, but woman for the man.”
• Argument four: Because of the angels (verse 10);
“For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of
authority on her head, because of the angels.”
For the cultural argument to be valid, all four of
these spiritual and scriptural arguments must be shown
to be culturally bound to the first century Greek speaking
people at Corinth. If this cannot be done, it must be
admitted and embraced by all, that the Apostleʼs
apostolic command is binding on the Church of Jesus
!81
Christ in every age, in every culture, and in every

geographical location.
Let us look then, very briefly, at these four
arguments; and ask the same question of each one.
Namely, “Is this argument culturally bound to the first
century Greek speaking people at Corinth?”
Spiritual and Scriptural Arguments

Argument one: Woman is the glory of the man (verse
7);
Is it true that only the Corinthian women were the
glory of man? Or, is it true that all women, everywhere
and in every age are the glory of man? Obviously, the
latter is true. The argument that Paul uses which declares
the woman to be the glory of the man is not culturally
bound to any people or to any period of history; it is true
always and everywhere.
Argument two: Woman was created from the man;
(verse 8);
We might ask, “Is it still true that woman was
created out of the man?” If this is still true, I mean if it is
still true that Eve was created from Adam (taken from his
side and fashioned from his rib), if that point of history
has remained unchanged or been unaltered, then how can
this second argument of the Apostle not be applicable to
women in all places, at all times?
Argument three: Woman was created for the benefit
of the man (verse 9);
Here we arrive at the third argument the Apostle
!82
Bishop Jerry Hayes
gave for the woman to wear a headcovering in the

assembly, when praying or prophesying. Again, the
question is asked, “Is it still true that the woman was
created to be a helpmate for man, and not vice versa?”
Indeed, it remains the case in every age and in every
place; the facts of history cannot be altered. The woman
was created to be a helpmate for Adam. So, the third
argument that the apostle employed for headcovering
remains applicable to every age and in every place.
Argument four: Because of the angels (verse 10).
This fourth and final argument, presented by the apostle
Paul for the headcovering, is perhaps the strongest and
most persuasive of the lot. I donʼt really think that
anyone with any reasoning ability would argue that the
relationship between the angels and humans has in some
way been changed, or altered, since Paul wrote his
instructions to the Corinthians. The weight of this
argument bears down heavily upon the Christian Church
of the twenty-first century. Since the angels are
ministering spirits sent forth to minister in behalf of those
of us who are heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1:14), and
since the angels are affected by what they behold in the
worship of the saints (Hebrews 12:1, 20), and since the
earthbound family of God has need of the aid and
ministry of those angelic beings, more today than any
other time of history, how much more should the
decorum of our worship be such that would garner their
favor and good attitude toward our needs?
!83
We should not be insensitive to the feelings and

emotions of the heavenly hosts. Remember that the sin
which split heaven, and set brother against brother, was
defection from position and place in the order of their
estate. The high prince, Lucifer, became discontent
within his sphere of authority, threw off his covering, and
determined to exalt his throne into the heavenlies, and to
be equal with God. One third of the angels confederated
with him. The war that ensued brought sadness where
only joy had been, darkness where light had ruled, sin
where holiness had been unchallenged. Michael and His
angels fought with Lucifer and his angels, until Michael
and God’s hosts expelled the transgressors, casting them
down to earth.
Now, from among those who were created lower
than the angels (human beings), God has chosen a bride
for Himself. This body of earthlings has been redeemed
from a fallen state; an act that puzzles, and at the same
time amazes, the angels who are assigned to minister in
the redeemed’s behalf. Scriptures instruct us that these
ancient beings are present among the saints during
corporate worship, in a manner that is unique to that
event. (The writer of Hebrews informs us that angels are
present in our worship in great numbers.37 ) It is during
37 Heb 12: 1a, 22-23 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about
with so great a cloud of witnesses, ... 22 But ye are come unto mount
Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to
an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and
church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the
Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
!84
Bishop Jerry Hayes
this time of corporate worship that Paul requires

Christian women to wear headcovering to demonstrate
their rank in the society of the righteous. One must not
think that it is a matter of small consequence for these
holy warriors of a forgotten past to behold Christian
women, who represent the feminine Bride of Christ,
demonstrating the self-same transgression (a defecting
from their rank and position in society) that caused civil
war in Heaven. It is not a small matter that Paul writes:
“Because of the Angels.”
On an entirely different level, but just as important,
is the relationship between humans (human women in
particular) and the angels who have fallen from the grace
of a judicial God. Fallen angels are constantly looking for
those in the family of God that can be misled,
misdirected, and simply deceived. The inherent weakness
within the female psyche to be deceived presents her as
easy prey. This disposition lays her bare to the deceptive
spirits that would convince her with lies, and ultimately
lead her into false worship. Because of this, God has
given her a covering, a protector—her male headship.
The male headship of every woman is attested to
by the headcovering she wears when praying or
prophesying. When any person prays or prophesies they
are transported into the spiritual dimension where angelic
beings, both good and evil, have their existence. Being
keenly aware of this fact, Paul gave instructions to the
Christian women that they should be covered when
moving in that spiritual realm, to serve notice to the
!85
fallen angels that they are operating in a delegated role,

and are, in fact, “covered” by their male headship. Any
attack upon them, then, must first come through their
covering. This serves as a deterrent to spiritual entities
that would be looking for soft targets within the Church.
Is this any less true today? Since the answer is no,
then Paulʼs requirement of a headcovering for Christian
women holds as much, if not more, weight in our present
time than it did in the first century.
Having looked at the four spiritual and scriptural
arguments presented by the Apostle for a woman to wear
a headcovering, and for a man not to wear a
headcovering when praying our prophesying, we have
discovered that these arguments remain valid throughout
history, in all cultures, in all races, and in all places.
!86
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Chapter IX
THE VEIL VS LONG HAIR
Historical Witnesses
Were the apostles and their surrogates such poor

teachers that no one got it?!
A sensible test of what the apostles taught is what
the generation to whom they taught believed and
practiced. So then, it is reasonable to look to the early
generations of Christians to aid our understanding of the
apostles’ teaching. One might object by saying: “All that
is needed is the witness of Holy Scripture.” That should
be the case, and would be true if all who considered the
Holy Scripture were honest. But all are not. Too many
come to the Scripture with biases that color the way they
see the Bible. We can all agree that the Bible is inspired
(God breathed). But, sadly, what is not inspired is our
interpretations of the Bible. For how can we all be
inspired when we read the same Scripture and come
away with opposing views? The holy Scripture has no
opposing truths. When two persons disagree on the
meaning of a particular passage, both cannot be right, and
both may be wrong. When this happens concerning a
passage of Scripture, such as this one on headcovering, it
is an honest question to ask, “What did the students of
Paul understand him to be teaching as the headcovering,
a RAC (Religious Article of Clothing) or hair?”
When we ask this question, and go to ancient
Church history for the answer, we find that, right out of
!87
the gate, the disciples of the apostle understood Paul’s

required covering to be a RAC. From the very first
known commentaries on 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, the RAC
is everywhere understood, practiced, and enjoined. The
Shepherd of Hermas (written at the very end of the 1st
century,38 who, according to Origen was the same
Hermas of Romans 16:14, an intimate of Paul39 ) echoes 1
Corinthians 11:3-16 as a RAC, when he describes the
Church, the Bride of Christ in Visions 4.2. The voices of
ancient Church history are all in harmony on Paul’s
38 The scholar John A. T. Robinson makes a detailed argument for the

Shepherd being written before the close of the first century. This is
because
a) All the canonical New Testament books predate the fall of Jerusalem
in AD.70, according to Robinson's detailed prior thesis in his book.
b) Irenaeus quotes it as scripture in "Against Heresy" (A.D. 180) thus
undermining the testimony of the Muratorian fragment, which, if believed,
would place it during the bishopric in Rome of Pius (140–155). Irenaeus
would not count a 2nd-century text as scripture.
c) Tertullian, in De Pudicitia (c. 215) strongly disparages Hermas, but
without mentioning the late composition which would have fatally
undermined its canonicity.
d) Origen freely cites Hermas as scripture, and in his Commentary on
Romans attributes it to the Hermas of Rom.16:14 (an identification
supported by Coleborne ).
e) The internal evidence of Vision 2.4.2 refers to Clement, apparently
before he became Bishop of Rome, for which Robinson cites in support
G. Edmundson's Bampton lectures of 1913. Edmundson dates Hermas
A.D. 90 on the basis that Clement became Bishop of Rome in 92.
Robinson states that there is no reason to suppose that this reference is
a pseudonymous fiction.
f) Robinson discounts the testimony of the Muratonian fragment, saying
that for no other book should its unsupported evidence be taken
seriously, and it is full of palpable mistakes.
39W.Coleborn, A linguistic approach to the problem of structure and
composition of The Shepherd of Hermas, Colloquium (The Australian
and New Zealand Theological Review) 3, 1969, 133–142
!88
Bishop Jerry Hayes
required covering being a RAC (Religious Article of

Clothing).
So, I ask the question again, “Were the apostles
and their surrogates such poor teachers that no one
got it?!”
There are voices in the Church, such as the United
Pentecostal Church International and sister groups, which
insist that Paul was teaching hair as the required
covering; if so, how was it that no one to whom they
taught understood it. What follows are the Christian
voices echoing up from the pages of history, voices that
declare the covering to be a cloth veil that accompanied
the hair.
The Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 90): ANF Vol II, page

18:
"A virgin meets me, adorned as if she were proceeding
from the bridal chamber...her head was covered by a
hood."
Irenaeus (A.D. 180): ANF Vol I, page 327:
Here, Irenaeus quotes 1 Corinthians 11:10 as “veil”
instead of “authority” as the Greek text actually has, or
“power” as the KJV has. He writes: “A woman ought to
have a veil upon her head, because of the angels.” He
understood the idiom. Irenaeus’ understanding is, of
course, correct, and militates against the position that
Paul’s required covering is hair.
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215): ANF, Vol II,
page 290
!89
“Woman and man are to go to church decently attired, ...

to pray to God. Let the woman observe this, further. Let
her be entirely covered, unless she happen to be at home.
For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being
gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her
eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another
to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the
wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray
veiled.”
Tertullian (A.D. 160-225): ANF, Vol III, pages 96 and

688; Vol IV, page 37
Volume III, page 96; “Demanding then a law of God,
you have that common one prevailing all over the world,
engraved on the natural tables to which the apostle too is
wont to appeal, as when in respect of the woman’s veil he
says, ‘Does not even nature teach you?’—as when to the
Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those
things which the law requires, he suggests both natural
law and a law-revealing nature.’”
Volume III. page 688: When urging that males and
females of all ages observed Paul’s instructions, writes:
“‘Every woman,’ saith he, ‘praying and prophesying with
head uncovered, dishonoureth her own head.’ What is
‘everywoman,’ but woman of every age, of every rank, of
every condition? By saying ‘every’ he excepts not of
womanhood, just as he excepts not of manhood either
from not being covered; for just so he says, “Every
man.” As, then, in the masculine sex, under the name of
!90
Bishop Jerry Hayes
‘man’ even the “youth” is forbidden to be veiled; so, too,

in the feminine, under the name of ‘woman,’ even the
‘virgin’ is bitten to be veiled.”
Volume IV, page 37: When admonishing women to
cover their entire head, writes: “For some, with their
turbans and woolen bands, do not veil their head, but
bind it up; protected, indeed, in front, but, where the head
properly lies, bear. Others are to a certain extent covered
over the region of the brain with linen coifs of small
dimensions – I suppose for fear of pressing the head –
and not reaching quite to the ears. If they are so weak in
their hearing as not to be able to hear through a
covering, I pity them. Let them know that the whole head
constitutes “the woman.” It’s limits and boundaries
reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The
region of the veil is coextensive with the space covered by
the hair when unbound; in order that the neck too may be
encircled.”
Methodius (A.D. 260-312): ANF, Vol VI, page 375;
When writing about the resurrection of the body, writes:
“And he asked what will be the appearance of the risen
body, when this human form, as according to him useless,
shall wholly disappear; since it is the most lovely of all
things which are combined in living creatures, as being
the form which the Deity Himself employs, as the most
wise Paul explains: ‘For a man indeed ought not to cover
his head, for as much as he is the image and glory of
God;’”
John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407): Homily XXVI;
!91
When teaching both the cloth RAC and hair as necessary

coverings, writes: “‘And if it’ (her hair) ‘be given her for
a covering,’ say you, ‘wherefore need she add another
covering?’ That not nature only, but also her own will
may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For
that you ought to be covered nature herself by
anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, your own
part also, that you may not seem to subvert the very laws
of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not
only with us, but with nature also.”
Augustine (354-430 a.d.)
Augustine quotes 1 Corinthians 11:4, 7 with regard to
men as follows:
“‘Every man praying or prophesying with veiled head
shameth his head;’ and, ‘A man ought not to veil his
head, forsomuch as he is the image and glory of God.’
Now if it is true of a man that he is not to veil his head,
then the opposite is true of a woman, that she is to veil
her head. ... especially when the apostle says that the
man is the image of God, and on that account removes
the covering from his head, which he warns the woman to
use, speaking thus: 'For a man indeed ought not to cover
his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God;
but the woman is the glory of the man.’” Augustine -
(Cited in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff, ed. vol.
3, 523):
Historical References Through the Centuries
A.D. 800
!92
Bishop Jerry Hayes
“It is likely that headgear for women was becoming more

common by the seventh century. It seems that Christian
morality (based on St Paul's edicts) was influential in this
respect. By the eighth century it seems that
headcoverings were worn by all women. It seems that a
close fitting cap was worn by most women (perhaps
similar to the slightly later caps from York and Dublin),
which sometimes left the hair at the forehead and temples
visible.” (Angelcynn, Clothing and Appearance of the
Early Christian Anglo-Saxons (c. 600-800 A.D.)
A.D. 1100-1200
"In the 11th and 12th c. it is very unusual to see a man
wearing a hat, though the women, unless they are very
young or representing some virtue, inevitably have some
sort of headdress on…while most women wore something
that was more or less a derivative of a
veil." (SusanCarroll-Clark)
“Married women usually wore their hair gathered up
into a knot at the back of the head, or coiled atop their
head in some arrangement and often covered their hair
with a cap, veil (hustrulinet) or headdress. Several
sources indicate that it was mandatory that Norse women
who were married wear a headcovering, however the
actual archaeology doesn't seem to support this belief:
"Many of the ninth and tenth century women's burials at
Birka reveal no headcoverings at all, let alone graves in
some other locations, although finds of headwear are
more common in Christianized areas like Dublin and
Jorvík” (Carolyn Priest-Dorman, Mistress Thora
!93
Sharptooth, OL, Viking Women's Garb in Art and

Archaeology)
“… I have looked at dozens and hundreds of
illuminations, pictures and medieval artifacts that
portray people in the civilian dress of various periods
and my observation is that you can't generalize. All
through the Early Christian, Migration and Carolingian
Eras you don't see many people with hats on, although
you see an occasional crown, the women are inevitably
veiled and many of the soldiers are wearing helmets.”
John Knox (A.D. 1505-1572)
“First, I say, the woman in her greatest perfection was
made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command
him. As saint Paule doth reason in these wordes: 'Man is
not of the woman, but the woman of the man. And man
was created for the cause of the woman, but the woman
for the cause of man; and therfore oght the woman to
have a power upon her head,' (that is, a coverture in
signe of subjection).”
John Knox, First Blast of the Trumpet Against the
Monstrous [i.e., against nature] Regiment [i.e., governing
authority] of Women, in Works of John Knox, David
Lang, ed. vol. 4, p 377: “...and therefore ought the
woman to have a power on her head, that is, a coverture
in signe of subjection.”
And again (p. 392): “Even so, (saith he) oght man and
woman to appeare before God, bearing the ensigns of the
condition whiche they have received of him. Man... oght
!94
Bishop Jerry Hayes
he to appear before his high Majestie bearing the signe

of his honour, havinge no coverature upon his
heade...Beware Chrysostom what thou saist! thou shalt
be reputed a traytor if Englishe men heare thee... He
procedeth in these wordes, ‘But woman oght to be
covered, to witnesse that in the earth, she had a head,
that is man.’ Trewe it is, Chrysostom, woman is covered
in both realmes, but it is not with a signe of subjection,
but it is with the signe of superioritie, to witte, with the
royal crowne.” (Lest it bears saying, his "warning" to
Chrysostom was sarcastic. In context, Knox agrees with
Chrysostom and is quoting him against the Royalists.)
John Calvin (A.D. 1509-1564)
The theologian of the Reformation preached three
sermons from 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 from which the
following excerpts are taken.
John Calvin (cited in Men, Women, and Order in the
Church: 3 Sermons by John Calvin, by Seth Skolnitzky.
Presbyterian Heritage Pub.):
“So if women are thus permitted to have their heads
uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be
allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come
to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they
will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no
more; in short they will forget the duty of nature….So,
when it is permissible for the women to uncover their
heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the
stomach also?' And then after that one will plead [for]
something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why
!95
not also [bare] this and [bare] that?' Then the men, for
their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no
decency left, unless people contain themselves and
respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go
headlong overboard.”
“Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her
for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair
is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it
is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing
to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture
is drawn, with some appearance of probability — that
women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to
uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their
beauty. It is not…” (John Calvin's Commentary on Head
Coverings)
George Gillespie (A.D. 1613-1648)

Gillespie, the youngest commissioners at the Westminster
Assembly, addresses the issue of women speaking as a
voice of one in the public worship services of the church
when he says:
“But where find we that women who were prophetesses,
and immediately inspired, were allowed to deliver their
prophecy in the church? I suppose he had a respect to 1
Cor. xi:5, 'But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth
with her head uncovered, dishonoreth her head,' which is
meant of the public assembly, for the Apostle is speaking
of covering or uncovering the head in the church. . . . So
that the Geneva annotation upon ver. 5, gives a good
!96
Bishop Jerry Hayes
sense of that text, 'That women which show themselves in

public and ecclesiastical assemblies, without the sign and
token of their subjection, that is to say, uncovered, shame
themselves.'"
Presbyterian Ministers from London during the time
of the Westminster Assembly (A.D. 1646)
“The wife must have power (exousia) on her head, i.e., a
veil is token of her husband's power over her (1 Cor.
11:10) ….”
“Yet a word to the Female Sex only, who come into the
Assembly with their hair the most part uncovered, short
to shorn, to the shame of their Natures as afore-shew'd:
as they may read [Num.5.18.], that that Woman that had
her hair uncovered before the Lord, in the Assembly or
Worship of God, were only such Women that their
Husbands accused them for being dishonest, so were
tried by the Law for Jealousie. Mr. Ains. in his
Annotations on the words, Uncover the Woman's head,
note what the manner was, as the Hebrews write, that the
Priest uncovered the Woman's hair, and untied the locks
of her head to make her unseemly; hence saith the
Apostle, Is it comely for a woman to pray unto God with
her head, to wit, her hair, uncovered [I Cor.11.13.]? ...the
name Vail, saith Mr. Ainsworth, on Song 5.7. hath its
name in the original of spreading, as being spread over
her head to cover her: such Vails were worn by Women,
partly for ornament, as appeareth by Isai. 3.23. partly for
modesty, and in sign of subjection to Men, especially
their husbands, I Cor. 11.6,7,10.” (Thomas Wall - To
!97
Defend the Head from the Superfluity of Naughtiness,

1688)
Henry Alford (A.D. 1810-1871)
“[1 Corinthians 11] 2-16. The law of subjection of the
woman to the man (2-12), and natural decency itself
(13-16), teach that women should be veiled in public
religious assemblies.”
Frederick Godet (A.D. 1812-1900)
“The phrase [in 1 Corinthians 11:4], 'having down from
the head,' that is to say, wearing a kerchief in the form of
a veil coming down from the head over the shoulders.
And since the woman does not naturally belong to public
life, if it happen that in the spiritual domain she has to
exercise a function which brings her into prominence, she
ought to strive the more to put herself out of view by
covering herself with the veil, which declares the
dependence in which she remains relatively to her
husband.”
A. R. Fausset (A.D. 1821-1910)
Fausset co-authored with David Brown and Robert
Jamieson the work, A Commentary, Critical,
Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New
Testaments.
“In putting away the veil, she puts away the badge of her
subjection to man (which is her true 'honor'), and of her
connection with Christ, man's Head. Moreover, the head
covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man
(Gen. xxiv: 65), and chastity (Gen. xx: 16). By its
unlawful excitement in assemblies is avoided, women not
!98
Bishop Jerry Hayes
attracting attention. Scripture sanctions not the

emancipation of woman from subjection: modesty is her
true ornament.”
M. R. Vincent (His Word Studies in the New
Testament was published in 1886)
“The head-dress of Greek women consisted of nets, hair-
bags, or kerchiefs, sometimes covering the whole head. A
shawl which enveloped the body was also often thrown
over the head, especially at marriages or funerals. This
costume the Corinthian women had disused in the
Christian assemblies, perhaps as an assertion of the
abolition of sexual distinctions, and the spiritual equality
of the woman with the man in the presence of Christ. This
custom was discountenanced by Paul as striking at the
divinely ordained subjection of the woman to the man.”
G. G. Findlay (no specific date cited for his work on 1
Corinthians in The Expositor's Greek New Testament,
but it was written in the late 19th century)
“For a woman to discard the veil means to cast off
masculine authority, which is a fixed part of the Divine
order, like man's subordination to Christ (3 f.).”
A. T. Robertson (His Word Pictures in the New
Testament was published in 1931)
In commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:4 (“having his head
covered”), Robertson points out: “Literally, having a veil
(kalumma understood) down from the head.” Paul
declares in 1 Corinthians 11:6, ‘Let her be veiled. . . . Let
her cover up herself with the veil (down, kata, the Greek
says, the veil hanging down from the head).’”
!99
William Barclay, 1954

"The problem was whether or not in the Christian
Church a woman had the right to take part in the service
unveiled. Paul's answer was bluntly this[:] the veil is
always a sign of subjection; it is worn by an inferior in
the presence of a superior; now woman is inferior to
man, in the sense that man is head of the household;
therefore it is wrong for a man to appear at public
worship veiled and it is equally wrong for a woman to
appear unveiled.”
John Murray (1898-1975), Professor of Systematic
Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary
These excerpts are taken from a letter to the Evangelical
Presbyterian Church (Australia) concerning the matter of
women being veiled in worship.
“Since Paul appeals to the order of creation (Vss. 3b, vss
7ff), it is totally indefensible to suppose that what is in
view and enjoined had only local or temporary
relevance. The ordinance of creation is universally and
perpetually applicable, as also are the implications for
conduct arising therefrom.”
“I am convinced that a head covering is definitely in view
forbidden for the man (Vss 4 & 7) and enjoined for the
woman (Vss 5,6,15). In the case of the woman the
covering is not simply her long hair. This supposition
would make nonsense of verse 6. For the thought there is,
that if she does not have a covering she might as well be
shorn or shaven, a supposition without any force
whatever if the hair covering is deemed sufficient.”
!100
Bishop Jerry Hayes
J. Vernon McGee (A.D. 1904-1990)

“Apparently some of the women in the church at Corinth
were saying, ‘All things are lawful for me, therefore, I
won't cover my head.’ Paul says this should not be done
because the veil is a mark of subjection."
Charles Caldwell Ryrie (The Role of Women in the
Church was published in A.D. 1958)
“If angels desire to look into things pertaining to
salvation, then they should see as they look at veiled
women in the assembly of Christians the voluntary
submission of a woman to her head. Thus the early
church (for this was the custom of the churches
generally) while offering religious equality in spiritual
privilege insisted on showing in public worship the
principle of subordination of women by their being
veiled.”
Bruce Waltke (“1 Corinthians 11:2-16: An
Interpretation” was published in Bibliotheca Sacra in
A.D. 1978)
"Although Paul does not use the word veil [kalumma
GLP], it seems reasonable to suppose that he has this
article of apparel in view. . . .To appear at the public
assembly, then, with inappropriate headdress would
disgrace one's head."
Robert D. Culver (Contributed “A Traditional View”
to Women in Ministry Four Views which was
published in A.d. 1989)
“God distinguishes sharply between the sexes as to
appearance and activity in formal Christian assemblies.
!101
A man's hair is to be short and his head uncovered by hat

or shawl, while a woman's hair is to be uncut and, in
visible recognition of submission to God's order, she is to
wear an additional head covering in order to veil, not her
face, but head.”
A.D. 2000
“Orthodox women, according to the words of the holy
Apostle Paul, go to God's church with covered heads.
For nearly two thousand years now, this custom has been
kept by faithful women and has been handed down from
generation to generation. It is a custom not only of the
local churches, but also of the Universal Church, and,
therefore whether we be in a Greek, in a Serbian or
Russian church the women in the church have their
heads covered.” (The Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St.
John the Baptist, Washington, D.C.)
____________________
The above sampling of historical references is

provided to demonstrate that the Christian community
has understood the apostle Paul to have taught a
Religious Article of Clothing as the required head-
covering; and, what is more, Christians have understood
this from the the very first century down to the present
time. The teaching of hair as the required covering is an
innovation to Christian teaching that only appeared near
the end of the 19th century. Because the Word of God is
not to be added to nor taken from, any innovation to
God’s Word is a sin.
!102
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Deuteronomy 4:2
“You shall not add to the word which I command you,
neither shall ye diminish ought from it, ...”
Revelation 22:18, 19
“For I testify to every man that hears the words of the
prophecy of this book, if any man shall add to these
words, God add to him the plagues that are written in
this book: and if any man shall take away from the
words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
his part from the book of life, and out of the holy city,
and from the things which are written in this book.”
And also:
Deuteronomy 12:32
“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it:
thou shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”
Then, again:
Proverbs 30:6
“Add not to his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be
found a liar.”
Search the annals of Christian history as one

might, a reference to the woman’s long uncut hair being
Paul’s required covering cannot be found earlier that the
late 19th century. At the close of the 19th century and the
beginning of the 20th, Methodist and Holiness groups in
America introduced an innovation to Paul’s instructions
from 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. They taught that Paul
intended long hair as the covering. At the turn of the 20th
!103
century the Oneness Pentecostal movement was birthed

out of the cradle of the Methodist and Holiness
movements of the 19th century. Hair, as Paul’s required
covering, is but one piece of baggage brought over from
the Methodist/Holiness camp into the Pentecostal camp.
Therefore, hair as Paul’s required covering is an
American innovation to Christian doctrine, and has just
as much legitimacy in the Lord’s kingdom as does
Mormonism—another American innovation.
Now I do not want to be understood as having the
intention of being insulting in my question here, but it is
an honest point to be made, and I hope it will be accepted
in the spirit I intend: “Is it not very arrogant of the United
Pentecostal Church International (and sister groups, that
like the UPCI, insist on hair being Paul’s required
covering for Christian women) to think that no one got
Paul's teaching right on the woman's covering, until the
last 150 years?” I mean, what kind of audacity does it
take to place their innovative interpretation of 1
Corinthians 11:3-16 above 1900 years of Christian
thought? This is especially audacious when they cannot
find one voice in two millennia of Church history to
agree with them? Honestly!
The author would make one other observation
concerning groups that teach hair as the covering taught
by Paul in his letter to the Corinthian: The unwillingness
to accept their error on this issue will, most likely, chain
them to the King James Version of the Bible for
perpetuity. The reason I say this is that modern English
!104
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Bibles remove much of the ambiguity caused by the KJV

in 1 Corinthians chapter eleven, which allows their
misinterpretations. This humble author is a KJV man,
himself; but he understands that it is not without its flaws.
We must be watchful that doctrines we have built from
the KJV readings, but cannot be supported from other
good versions of the Greek New Testament, do not hold
us bound to a less than perfect version of God's Word.
!105
Chapter X
THE TRAGEDY OF NEGLECTED
HEADSHIP
One may wonder why we

spend so much effort to teach
headcovering for Christian women,
especially when the pulpits of the
Western world are all but silent on
the issue. The answer to such a
question is simply this: The respect
for authority and headship is all
but lost in America. As Americans
we are not in spiritual nor
scriptural order; not in our homes, not in our country, but
especially not in our churches. Headcovering would go
along way toward remedying our dilemma.
The modern woman finds herself in a different
world with different norms than they would have fifty
years ago. Women today are heads of large corporations.
Also, women find themselves seated in the pastoral chairs
of many churches. Women are elected bishops in some
denominations. One should be concerned about the lines
of demarcation between the roles of the sexes.
There is, by and large, an undue lack of respect
and honor coming from the sector of Christian women
toward the authority which Yahweh has placed in the
home, and civil government, but especially in the church.
!106
Bishop Jerry Hayes
The pain of all this is that the same attitude is reflected by

the children that are nurtured by women, who
themselves, fail to reflect respect for authority. The
children have zero respect for father, when they see that
mother has no respect for father. (Sometimes, more often
than it should be, the man has given his wife nothing to
honor. Rather than raise children in a home where the
man of the house is unrespectable, a mother has a
responsibility to her children to provide a suitable role
model. There are far worse circumstances in the home
than divorce.) Consequently, the boy children grow up
with no sense of respect—neither to receive it nor to give
it. Therefore, those whom the (boys grown to be the)
fathers should respect, such as our leaders, law
enforcement, and pastors, are not respected. Todayʼs
fathers, raised by mothers who did not demonstrate
respect or honor for their heads, do not, themselves,
expect to receive such from their wives or children; thus,
a society is produced where authority is despised and
civility is but an old shoe that is discarded as yesterday’s
trash. It is not an untrue statement that, “The hand that
rocks the cradle rules the world.”
Ecclesiastical Bra Burning

In the sixties, when the feminist movement was
getting under way, it was common to see pictures in the
newspapers, and on the evening news, of women burning
their bras in public, as a symbol of throwing off male
headship. Since that time women have made great
!107
headway in the
public arena, but,
to the detriment of
the western family
and the morals of
society in general.
We need not list
the items of
deterioration in
our society since
the decade of the sixties. Let it suffice to say that the
Bible was kicked out of the public school system in that
decade. When the Bible went out, armed policemen came
in, and now patrol the hallways of our institutions of
learning; not only at the high school level but also in
middle school and even lower grades. Teen pregnancy
has continued to escalate unabated. Drugs have become
pandemic. Abortion and Gay Rights, twin sisters of hell,
are the rule of the day. All of this should serve to
illustrate how important it is to civilization for the
woman to stand her post in the home. When mothers
leave the home to enter the marketplace, other voices
become the moral conscience of the younger generation.
When the women, in general, left their God appointed
position to excel, and even compete, in the marketplace,
with their male counterparts, the home was forsaken and
a generation has become lost. Yes, feminism has
advanced women in the marketplace of the world,
perhaps, at the expense of Western civilization itself.
!108
Bishop Jerry Hayes
It was in the same decade that Christian women

laid aside their God ordained headcovering in the house
of God. I remember those days. I remember the women
saying: “We do not need to wear the symbol to keep the
principle. We will recognize the order of headship, and
keep it in our hearts; it is not necessary to wear the
headcovering to keep the principle.” There is a saying
that; “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” Well, we
have had half a century of eating the pudding, and
there is poison in the dish.
God, in His wisdom, gave us symbols that were
object lessons to teach principles. He knew, even if our
most gifted theologians do not, that if the symbol is
neglected, the principle will be forsaken. Jesus taught this
very thing in the parable of the Wine and the Wineskins.
He said, “You put new wine into new wineskins, and
both are preserved.” In this parable, Jesus taught that the
wineskin preserved the wine and was, moreover,
fundamental to the preservation of it. Now, of course, the
wine is the important thing, not the wineskin. Just as the
Western Church reasoned fifty years ago that the
principle of headship was the important thing. However,
in Jesusʼ parable the wineskin was the preserver of the
wine. Even so, the headcovering had been the preserver
of the principle of headship for two thousand years in the
Lordʼs Church; now, only fifty years removed from the
discarding of the headcovering we see the destruction of
the morals of a nation, and the deterioration of Western
Christian society altogether. Now, weʼre not saying that
!109
the removal of the headcovering caused the collapse that

we see going on around us ( for the sin was in the heart
long before the headcoverings were removed from the
head); but, we are saying that the removal of the object
lesson, which taught the principle (the wineskin that
preserves the wine), removed a constant reminder, from
before the eyes of men and women, of Godʼs appointed
roles. The old adage “out of sight, out of mind” has never
been truer than here. When the visible reminder is
removed, men and women forget.
Just as the secular women of the sixties burned
their bras to demonstrate against male headship, so the
Christian women of the same era removed their
headcovering to make the same statement. It was the
same demonic spirit working in both the secular and
religious arenas. Removal of the Christian womanʼs
headcovering was nothing less than ecclesiastical bra
burning.
N. O. W. (National Organization of Women)
Before I go on from this section I want to ask this
question: “From whom are Christian women getting their
marching orders? the Bible? or N. O. W. (National
Organization of Women)?”
Following is a quote from N. O. W.'s handbook,
Under A. "Religion Resolutions"
"Because the wearing of a head covering by women at
religious services is a symbol of subjection within many
churches, N.O.W. recommends that all chapters
!110
Bishop Jerry Hayes
undertake an effort to have all women participate in a

'national unveiling' by sending their heard coverings to
the task force chairman. At the Spring meeting of the task
force of women and religion, these veils will be publicly
burned to protest the second class status of women in all
churches. (Dec. 1969)"
The National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) is
an organization founded in 1966. It has a membership of
550,000 contributing members set up for the
advancement of women. The organization consists of 550
chapters in all 50 U.S. states and the District of
Columbia.
While the women of the world were burning their
bras, women of the church were burning their head-
coverings. All dancing to the same demonic spiritual
beat.
Unimportant, if not Salvific?
Please excuse the personal references.
While writing this book, a close pastor friend sent the
author this very serious objection. He said, “No disrespect
intended, but, I want to concentrate my efforts on winning
the lost! If it's not heaven and hell, why do we spend so
much time addressing issues such as ...!!” Although this
pastor (whom I love dearly in Christ and who has labored
with me in Christ) wrote these words, what I write below is
not addressed to him alone, but to all who share his
sentiments.
“No disrespect from me either, but, it is sad that so
many feel that way. I say that because we have a
responsibility to our generation to affect society. An example
!111
is that Billy Graham spent a life time of ministry preaching

only salvation to the lost, but has not left a footprint on
Western society in general. Why?
“Will, I have thought long and hard on that point. In
my humble opinion it is because he refused to engage his
generation on any social level whatsoever. He never took a
political stand on any issue that mattered, nor did he speak
against society's migration away from New Testament culture.
“A salvation message only may appeal to those who
wrongly preach and expect the rapture any second, and who
believe that the world is going to the devil and his anti-christ;
but, there is also a responsibility to be watchmen on the wall,
crying out the warning against the sin of disrespect to the
Scripture, and the migration away from Christian culture.
Some issues may not be salvational for the individual, but, be
disastrous for the next generation if not preached. Now, this is
only a valid argument IF one believes there will be a NEXT
generation. I do. And a next, and a next, and a next, etc.
“It use to be that we could speak of the ‘Christian
culture’—not any more. Our churches have become so
‘seeker friendly’ that sin is hardly preached against by name,
dress codes (headcovering, in particular) have been discarded
altogether, lest the visitors be offended. Where can the
Christian culture be found in your congregation outside of the
church house? Better yet, where can the Christian culture be
found INSIDE your church? Ponder this: If a man persisted
on wearing a ball cap or hat in your church services, would
you approach him on the matter?
“I think the greatest shame is that you know the
instructions of Paul and refuse to teach them to the people
God has given you to shepherd. You may ease your
conscience by saying that it is not salvational, but you would
!112
Bishop Jerry Hayes
be wrong. Maybe not salvational to the individual, but

salvational to the life of the Church of Christ.
“I see this as the greatest sin of the Rapture-Now
theology. Those of us who have been promoters of it have
neglected (and put in danger) the future life of the Lord's
church. When it is all said and done the Watchmen on the
walls must answer to a righteous God who left instructions,
through His holy apostles, how to maintain headship in the
Kingdom, and protect Christian culture throughout the earth.
You may not have the blood of your generation on your
hands, but could very well be stained with the blood of future
Christianity.”
Lest We Forget
Paul said, “For this cause ought the woman to
have power on her head because of the Angels.” The
symbol of headship that a woman wears on her head is
the greatest preacher and teacher of headship the Church
has. The institution of headcovering is a priceless gift
given by a loving God to the human family to help us
maintain order and unity in His economy.
When I, as a husband, see my wifeʼs headcovering
I am preached to. She may not realize it but she is saying
to me, “You are my covering; it is your responsibility to
cover me both physically and spiritually.” The
headcovering serves to remind me of my responsibility to
be my wifeʼs protector and provider.
On the other hand when my wife puts on her
headcovering she also is ministered to in the following
manner. First, she is reminded that she has a covering,
someone to stand between her and all else—physically
!113
and spiritually, she has a protector, she has a provider,

she has a champion in life. Second, she is reminded of
her role in the family and in society at large; that she is to
be in submission to her head and function in a role of
delegated authority in relation to that headship. Within
my lifetime this preacher of headship was silenced; so,
many have forgotten.
Beloved, it is our desire that Godʼs people be
blessed; but, we cannot be blessed when we are not in
submission to those whom God has placed as heads over
us. Whether it be Christ over man, man over woman, or a
woman over the children. We must respect and honor
authority.
To Lady Ministers
Permit me to address you lady ministers: Before
you mount the platform of the Church, and before you
take your position behind the sacred desk, be aware that
angels are watching (Hebrews 12:1, 22), and looking to
you for instruction in the wisdoms of God (Ephesians
3:1040 ). The sin of their kind was a transgression of rank
in the heavenly realm. You, my sister, who represent the
40Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in
heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of
God,
!114
Bishop Jerry Hayes
church of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-3241) to all the angelic

hosts, should be mindful not to do anything that gives the
appearance of transgressing your God-appointed rank in
His kingdom, such as the removal of your headcovering.
If you remove your headcovering in the assembly, where
you are in the presence of an innumerable company of
angels, you are serving notice to the spirit realm that you
are not content with Godʼs created order. This directly
affects their ability to minister to you, because you
become associated with that portion of their race which
saddened heaven with their disaffection of Godʼs rule.
Second, you serve notice to the fallen angels that you are
of their spirit and cut from the same bolt of cloth as they,
and consequently, are prepared to partner with them.
Your way is clear. Have the courage to go against
the tide of feminism and take your place in Godʼs order,
not the worldʼs. Permit your conscience to be taken
captive by the Word of God.
41 Eph 5:22-32 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as

unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ
is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore
as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own
husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ
also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify
and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might
present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any
such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought
men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth
himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and
cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his
body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave
his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two
shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning
Christ and the church.
!115
Chapter XI
GREEK AUTHORITIES
Writing On Headcovering, With 1 Corinthians
11:16 as the Focus:
“But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no
such custom, nor do the churches of God.”
The following references, from the scholars, are

presented to counter those who would attempt to slip
away from the Apostles injunction, by claiming that Paul
admitted that the Church, nor he, had any custom of the
headcovering. While we might argue that anyone with
one eye and walking around sense would not reason that
the wise Apostle Paul would spend so much effort
enjoining the principle of the veil for women, and
denying it for men, to only say, in the end: “However, if
you disagree with me, just forget it; the Church does not
have this custom anyway”—yet, there are people who
would reason in just such a non-sensical manner.
Robertsonʼs Word Pictures of the Greek New

Testament
1Co 11:16, Contentious (philoneikos). Old adjective
(philos, neikos), fond of strife. Only here in N.T. If he
only existed in this instance, the disputatious brother.
Custom (sunētheian). Old word from sunēthēs (sun,
ēthos), like Latin consuetudo, intercourse, intimacy. In
N.T. only here and Jn 8:7 which see. “In the sculptures of
!116
Bishop Jerry Hayes
the catacombs the women have a close-fitting head-dress,

while the men have the hair short” (Vincent).
Contentious: Strongʼs G5380

Φιλόνεικος philoneikos fil-on'-i-kos
From G5384 and νεῖκος neikos (a quarrel; probably akin
to G3534); fond of strife, that is, disputatious: -
contentious.
Thayer Definition: Φιλόνεικος philoneikos

1) fond of strife, contentious
1a) in a good sense, emulous
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayerʼs/Strongʼs Number: from
G5384 and neikos (a quarrel, probably akin to G3534)
Custom: Strongʼs G4914

Συνήθεια sunētheia soon-ay'-thi-ah From a compound
of G4862 and G2239; mutual habituation, that is, usage:
- custom.
Vincentʼs Word Studies, 1Co 11:16

Custom:
Not the custom of contentiousness, but that of women
speaking unveiled. The testimonies of Tertullian and
Chrysostom show that these injunctions of Paul prevailed
in the churches. In the sculptures of the catacombs the
women have a close-fitting head-dress, while the men
have the hair short.
!117
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown Commentary, 1Co

11:16
A summary close to the argument by appeal to the
universal custom of the churches.
if any ... seem — The Greek also means “thinks” (fit)
(compare Mat 3:9). If any man chooses (still after all my
arguments) to be contentious. If any be contentious and
thinks himself right in being so. A reproof of the
Corinthiansʼ self-sufficiency and disputatiousness (1Co
1:20).
we — apostles: or we of the Jewish nation, from whom
ye have received the Gospel, and whose usages in all that
is good ye ought to follow: Jewish women veiled
themselves when in public, according to Tertullian
[Estius]. The former explanation is best, as the Jews are
not referred to in the context: but he often refers to
himself and his fellow apostles, by the expression, “we -
us” (1Co 4:9, 1Co 4:10).
no such custom — as that of women praying uncovered.
Not as Chrysostom, “that of being contentious.” The
Greek term implies a usage, rather than a mental habit
(Joh 18:39). The usage of true “churches (plural: not, as
Rome uses it, ʻthe Church,ʼ as an abstract entity; but ʻthe
churches,ʼ as a number of independent witnesses) of
God” (the churches which God Himself recognizes), is a
valid argument in the case of external rites, especially,
negatively, for example, Such rites were not received
among them, therefore, ought not to be admitted among
us: but in questions of doctrine, or the essentials of
!118
Bishop Jerry Hayes
worship, the argument is not valid [Sclater] (1Co 7:17;

1Co 14:33).
Matthew Henryʼs Commentary

VII. He sums up all by referring those who were
contentious to the usages and customs of the churches,
1Co 11:16. Custom is in a great measure the rule of
decency. And the common practice of the churches is
what would have them govern themselves by. He does
not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets
them know that they would appear to the world as very
odd and singular in their humor if they would quarrel for
a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that
time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all
concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency.
It was the common usage of the churches for women to
appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship,
veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do
so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would
quarrel with this, or lay it aside.
Adam Clark 1Co 11:16

But if any man seem to be contentious - Ει δε τις
δοκει φιλονεικος ειναι· If any person sets himself up as
a wrangler - puts himself forward as a defender of such
points, that a woman may pray or teach with her head
uncovered, and that a man may, without reproach, have
long hair; let him know that we have no such custom as
either, nor are they sanctioned by any of the Churches of
!119
God, whether among the Jews or the Gentiles. We have

already seen that the verb δοκειν, which we translate to
seem, generally strengthens and increases the sense.
From the attention that the apostle has paid to the subject
of veils and hair, it is evident that it must have
occasioned considerable disturbance in the Church of
Corinth. They have produced evil effects in much later
times.
Albert Barnesʼ Notes on the Bible

1 Co 11:16
But if any man seem to be contentious - The sense of this
passage is probably this: “If any man, any teacher, or
others, “is disposed” to be strenuous about this, or to
make it a matter of difficulty; if he is disposed to call in
question my reasoning, and to dispute my premises and
the considerations which I have advanced, and to
maintain still that it is proper for women to appear
unveiled in public, I would add that in Judea we have no
such custom, neither does it prevail among any of the
churches. This, therefore, would be a sufficient reason
why it should not be done in Corinth, even if the abstract
reasoning should not convince them of the impropriety. It
would be singular; would be contrary to the usual
custom; would offend the prejudices of many and should,
therefore, be avoided.”
We have no such custom - We the apostles in the
churches which we have elsewhere founded; or we have
no such custom in Judea. The sense is, that it is contrary
!120
Bishop Jerry Hayes
to custom there for women to appear in public unveiled.

This custom, the apostle argues, ought to be allowed to
have some influence on the church of Corinth, even
though they should not be convinced by his reasoning.
Neither the churches of God - The churches elsewhere.
It is customary there for the woman to appear veiled. If at
Corinth this custom is not observed, it will be a departure
from what has elsewhere been regarded as proper; and
will offend these churches. Even, therefore, if the
reasoning is not sufficient to silence all cavils and doubts,
yet the propriety of uniformity in the habits of the
churches, the fear of giving offense should lead you to
discountenance and disapprove the custom of your
females appearing in public without their veil.
John Gillʼs Exposition of the Entire Bible

1 Cor 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious,....
That is, if anyone will not be satisfied with reasons given,
for men's praying and prophesying with their heads
uncovered, and women's praying and prophesying with
their heads covered; but will go on to raise objections,
and continue carping and caviling, showing that they
contend not for truth, but victory, can they but obtain it
any way; for my part, as if the apostle should say, I shall
not think it worth my while to continue the dispute any
longer; enough has been said to satisfy any wise and
good man, anyone that is serious, thoughtful, and modest;
and shall only add, we have no such custom, nor the
churches of God; meaning, either that men should
!121
appear covered, and women uncovered in public service,

and which should have some weight with all those that
have any regard to churches and their examples; or that
men should be indulged in a captious and contentious
spirit; a man that is always contending for contention
sake, and is continually caviling and carping at
everything that is said and done in churches, and is
always quarreling with one person or another, or on
account of one thing or another, and is constantly giving
uneasiness, is not fit to be a church member; nor ought he
to be suffered to continue in the communion of the
church, to the disturbance of the peace of it.
Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Th.D., Ph.D. Study Bible,

Notes on 1 Corinthians 11:16 “no such custom” “I.e., no
custom of women worshiping without some form of a
covering.”
The UPCI, and sister groups who teach hair as Paul’s required covering,
make a number of serious errors attempting to interpret the meaning of
having one’s head “covered”.
1. Refusal to accept Greek dictionaries for the definition of katakalupto.
2. Failure to research into the Greek OT for usage of the Greek terms in
the NT. Both katakalupto and periballo meant “veil.”
3. Failure to research into ancient Greek literature for usage of Greek
terms.
4. Apparent deceit in quoting word definitions. Such is the case with
the Greek word anti.
5. Failure to recognize the Apostle’s use of symbolism.
6. Attempting at every point to put the passage of 1 Cor. 11:2-16
within a modern day church setting.
7. The total disregard of Greek idioms.
!122
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Chapter XII
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM,
Homily XXVI, ON THE VEILING OF WOMEN
(A.D. 347-407)
John of Antioch,
called Chrysostom (the
golden mouth) was
made Archbishop of
Constantinople in 397.
John is recognized in
the East as a Great
Hierarch and Ecumen-
ical Teacher, in the
West as Bishop and
Doctor of the Church.
He left the Christian
world a remarkable A Byzantine mosaic of John
collection of homilies Chrysostom from the Hagia Sophia
that were transcribed by
stenographers as he preached. It is fitting at this point of
our study to set down here his homily on 1 Corinthians
11:3-16.
The reader will be advised that the author does not
quite agree with Chrysostom when he requires the veil
for the Christian woman to be worn at all times when in
public. However, his testimony for the veil and hair
styles for both men and women are noteworthy, for it
!123
informs the modern Christian of the Church’s inter-

pretation of the Apostle Paul’s teaching.
So, here, we pick up the sermon on the “Veiling of
Women” at verse 3 of 1 Corinthians 11:
Ver. 3. But I would have ye know, that the
head of every man is Christ; and the head of
every woman is the man; and the head of
Christ is God."
“This is his account of the reason of the
thing, and he states it to make the weaker
more attentive. He indeed that is faithful,
as he ought to be, and steadfast, doth not
require any reason or cause of those things
which are commanded him, but is content
with the ordinance alone. But he that is
weaker, when he also learns the cause, then
both retains what is said with more care and
obeys with much readiness.
“Wherefore neither did he state the cause
until he saw the commandment
transgressed. What then is the cause? “The
head of every man is Christ.” Is He then
Head of the Gentile also? In no wise. For if
"we are the Body of Christ, and severally
members thereof," (chap. 12:27.) and in this
way He is our head, He cannot be the head of
them who are not in the Body and rank not
among the members. So that when he says,
"of every man," one must understand it of
the believer. Perceivest thou how every
where he appeals to the hearer’s shame by
arguing from on high? Thus both when he
was discoursing on love, and when on
humility, and when on alms-giving, it was
from thence that he drew his examples.
!124
Bishop Jerry Hayes
[2.] "But the head of the woman is the man; and

the head of Christ is God." Here the heretics
rush upon us with a certain declaration of
inferiority, which out of these words they
contrive against the Son. But they stumble
against themselves. For if "the man be the head
of the woman," and the head be of the same
substance with the body, and "the head of
Christ is God," the Son is of the same substance
with the Father. "Nay," say they, "it is not His
being of another substance which we intend to
show from hence, but that He is under
subjection." What then are we to say to this? In
the first place, when any thing lowly is said of
him conjoined as He is with the Flesh, there is
no disparagement of the Godhead in what is
said, the Economy admitting the expression.
However, tell me how thou intendest to prove
this from the passage? "Why, as the man governs
the wife, saith he, "so also the Father, Christ."
Therefore also as Christ governs the man, so
likewise the Father, the Son. "For the head of
every man," we read, "is Christ." And who could
ever admit this? For if the superiority of the
Son compared with us, be the measure of the
Fathers’ compared with the Son, consider to
what meanness thou wilt bring Him. So that we
must not try all things by like measure in
respect of ourselves and of God, though the
language used concerning them be similar; but
we must assign to God a certain appropriate
excellency, and so great as belongs to God. For
should they not grant this, many absurdities
will follow. As thus; "the head of Christ is
God:" and, "Christ is the head of the man, and he
of the woman." Therefore if we choose to take
the term, "head," in the like sense in all the
clauses, the Son will be as far removed from
the Father as we are from Him. Nay, and the
woman will be as far removed from us as we are
from the Word of God. And what the Son is to
!125
the Father, this both we are to the Son and the

woman again to the man. And who will endure
this?
But dost thou understand the term "head"
differently in the case of the man and the
woman, from what thou dost in the case of
Christ? Therefore in the case of the Father and
the Son, must we understand it differently
also. "How understand it differently?" saith the
objector. According to the occasion. For had
Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection, as
thou sayest, he would not have brought
forward the instance of a wife, but rather of a
slave and a master. For what if the wife be
under subjection to us? it is as a wife, as free,
as equal in honor. And the Son also, though He
did become obedient to the Father, it was as the
Son of God, it was as God. For as the obedience
of the Son to the Father is greater than we
find in men towards the authors of their being,
so also His liberty is greater. Since it will not
of course be said that the circumstances of the
Son’s relation to the Father are greater and
more intimate than among men, and of the
Father’s to the Son, less. For if we admire the
Son that He was obedient so as to come even
unto death, and the death of the cross, and
reckon this the great wonder concerning Him;
we ought to admire the Father also, that He
begat such a son, not as a slave under command,
but as free, yielding obedience and giving
counsel. For the counsellor is no slave. But
again, when thou hearest of a counsellor, do
not understand it as though the Father were in
need, but that the Son hath the same honor
with Him that begat Him. Do not therefore
strain the example of the man and the woman to
all particulars.
For with us indeed the woman is reasonably
subjected to the man: since equality of honor
!126
Bishop Jerry Hayes
causeth contention. And not for this cause

only, but by reason also of the deceit (1 Tim.
2:14.) which happened in the beginning.
Wherefore you see, she was not subjected as
soon as she was made; nor, when He brought
her to the man, did either she hear any such
thing from God, nor did the man say any such
word to her: he said indeed that she was "bone
of his bone, and flesh of his flesh:" (Gen. 2:23.)
but of rule or subjection he no where made
mention unto her. But when she made an ill use
of her privilege and she who had been made a
helper was found to be an ensnarer and ruined
all, then she is justly told for the future, "thy
turning shall be to thy husband." (Gen. 3:16.)
To account for which; it was likely that this sin
would have thrown our race into a state of
warfare; (for her having been made out of him
would not have contributed any thing to peace,
when this had happened, nay, rather this very
thing would have made the man even the
harsher, that she made as she was out of him
should not have spared even him who was a
member of herself:) wherefore God,
considering the malice of the Devil, raised up
the bulwark of this word and what enmity was
likely to arise from his evil device, He took
away by means of this sentence and by the
desire implanted in us: thus pulling down the
partition-wall, i.e, the resentment caused by
that sin of hers. But in God and in that
undefiled Essence, one must not suppose any
such thing.
Do not therefore apply the examples to all,
since elsewhere also from this source many
grievous errors will occur. For so in the
beginning of this very Epistle, he said, (1 Cor.
3:22, 23.) "All are yours, and ye are Christ’s,
and Christ is God’s." What then? Are all in like
manner ours, as "we are Christ’s, and Christ is
!127
God’s?" In no wise, but even to the very simple

the difference is evident, although the same
expression is used of God, and Christ, and us.
And elsewhere also having called the husband
"head of the wife," he added, (Eph. 5:23.) "Even
as Christ is Head and Saviour and Defender of
the Church, so also ought the man to be of his
own wife." Are we then to understand in like
manner the saying in the text, both this, and all
that after this is written to the Ephesians
concerning this subject? Far from it. It is
impossible. For although the same words are
spoken of God and of men, they do not have the
same force in respect to God and to men, but in
one way those must be understood, and in
another these. Not however on the other hand
all things diversely: since contrariwise they
will seem to have been introduced at random
and in vain, we reaping no benefit from them.
But as we must not receive all things alike, so
neither must we absolutely reject all.
Now that what I say may become clearer, I will
endeavor to make it manifest in an example.
Christ is called "the Head of the Church." If I
am to take nothing from what is human in the
idea, why, I would know, is the expression used
at all? On the other hand, if I understand all
in that way, extreme absurdity will result. For
the head is of like passions with the body and
liable to the same things. What then ought we
to let go, and what to accept? We should let go
these particulars which I have mentioned, but
accept the notion of a perfect union, and the
first principle; and not even these ideas
absolutely, but here also we must form a
notion, as we may by ourselves, of that which is
too high for us and suitable to the Godhead:
for both the union is surer and the beginning
more honorable.
!128
Bishop Jerry Hayes
Again, thou hearest the word "Son;" do not thou

in this case admit all particulars; yet neither
oughtest thou to reject all: but admitting
whatever is meet for God, e.g. that He is of the
same essence, that He is of God; the things
which are incongruous and belong to human
weakness, leave thou upon the earth.
Again, God is called "Light." Shall we then
admit all circumstances which belong to
natural light? In no wise. For this light yields
to darkness, and is circumscribed by space, and
is moved by another power, and is
overshadowed; none of which it is lawful even
to imagine of That Essence. We will not
however reject all things on this account, but
will reap something useful from the example.
The illumination which cometh to us from God,
the deliverance from darkness, this will be
what we gather from it.
[4.] Thus much in answer to the heretics: but we

must also orderly go over the whole passage.
For perhaps some one might here have doubt
also, questioning with himself, what sort of a
crime it was for the woman to be uncovered, or
the man covered? What sort of crime it is, learn
now from hence.
Symbols many and diverse have been given both
to man and woman; to him of rule, to her of
subjection: and among them this also, that she
should be covered, while he hath his head bare.
If now these be symbols. you see that both err
when they disturb the proper order, and
transgress the disposition of God, and their
own proper limits, both the man falling into
the woman’s inferioriy, and the woman rising up
against the man by her outward habiliments.
For if exchange of garments be not lawful, so
that neither she should be clad with a cloak,
!129
nor he with a mantle or a veil: ("for the woman,"

saith He, "shall not wear that which pertaineth
to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s
garments:") much more is it unseemly for these
(Deut. xxii. 5.) things to be interchanged. For
the former indeed were ordained by men, even
although God afterwards ratified them: but
this by nature, I mean the being covered or
uncovered. But when I say Nature, I mean God.
For He it is Who created Nature. When
therefore thou overturnest these boundaries,
see how great injuries ensue.
And tell me not this, that the error is but
small. For first, it is great even of itself: being
as it is disobedience. Next, though it were
small, it became great because of the greatness
of the things whereof it is a sign. However,
that it is a great matter, is evident from its
ministering so effectually to good order among
mankind, the governor and the governed being
regularly kept in their several places by it.
So that he who transgresseth disturbs all
things, and betrays the gifts of God, and casts
to the ground the honor bestowed on him from
above; not however the man only, but also the
woman. For to her also it is the greatest of
honors to preserve her own rank; as indeed of
disgraces, the behavior of a rebel. Wherefore
he laid it down concerning both, thus saying,
Ver. 4. "Every man praying or prophesying
having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
But every woman praying or prophesying with
her head unveiled. dishonoreth her head."
For there were, as I said, both men who
prophesied and women who had this girl at that
time, as the daughters of Philip, (Acts. 21:9.) as
others before them and after them: concerning
whom also the prophet spake of old: "your sons
!130
Bishop Jerry Hayes
shall prophesy, and your daughters shall see

visions." (Joel 2:28. Acts 2:17.)
Well then: the man he compelleth not to be
always uncovered, but only when he prays. "For
every man," saith he, "praying or prophesying,
having his head covered, dishonoreth his head."
But the woman he commands to be at all times
covered. Wherefore also having said, "Every
woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her
head unveiled, dishonoreth her head," he stayed
not at this point only, but also proceeded to
say, "for it is one and the same thing as if she
were shaven." But if to be shaven is always
dishonorable, it is plain too that being
uncovered is always a reproach. And not even
with this only was he content, but added again,
saying, "The woman ought to have a sign of
authority on her head, because of the angels."
He signifies that not at the time of prayer only
but also continually, she ought to be covered.
But with regard to the man, it is no longer
about covering but about wearing long hair,
that he so forms his discourse. To be covered
he then only forbids, when a man is praying;
but the wearing long hair he discourages at all
times. Wherefore, as touching the woman, he
said, "But if she be not veiled, let her also be
shorn;" so likewise touching the man, "If he
have long hair, it is a dishonor unto him." He
said not, "if he be covered" but, "if he have long
hair," Wherefore also he said at the beginning,
"Every man praying or prophesying, having any
thing on his head, dishonoreth his head." He
said not, "covered," but "having any thing on his
head;" signifying that even though he pray with
the head bare, yet if he have long hair, he is
like to one covered. "For the hair," saith he, "is
given for a covering."
!131
Ver. 6. "But if a woman is not veiled, let her

also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman
to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled."
Thus, in the beginning he simply requires that
the head be not bare: but as he proceeds he
intimates both the continuance of the rule,
saying, "for it is one and the same thing as if
she were shaven," and the keeping of it with all
care and diligence. For he said not merely
covered, but "covered over," meaning that she be
carefully wrapped up on every side. And by
reducing it to an absurdity, he appeals to their
shame, saying by way of severe reprimand, "but
if she be not covered, let her also be shorn." As
if he had said, "If thou cast away the covering
appointed by the law of God, cast away likewise
that appointed by nature."
But if any say, "Nay, how can this be a shame to
the woman, if she mount up to the glory of the
man?" we might make this answer; "She doth not
mount up, but rather falls from her own
proper honor." Since not to abide within our
own limits and the laws ordained of God, but to
go beyond, is not an addition but a diminuation.
For as he that desireth other men’s goods and
seizeth what is not his own, hath not gained any
thing more, but is diminished, having lost even
that which he had, (which kind of thing also
happened in paradise:) so likewise the woman
acquireth not the man’s dignity, but loseth
even the woman’s decency which she had. And
not from hence only is her shame and reproach,
but also on account of her covetousness.
Having taken then what was confessedly
shameful, and having said, "but if it be a shame
for a woman to be shorn or shaven," he states
in what follows his own conclusion, saying,
"let her be covered." And he said not, "let her
have long hair," but, "let her be covered,"
ordaining both these to be one, and
!132
Bishop Jerry Hayes
establishing them both ways, from what was

customary and from their contraries: in that he
both affirms the covering and the hair to be
one, and also that she again who is shaven is
the same with her whose head is bare. "For it is
one and the same thing," saith he, "as if she
were shaven." But if any say, "And how is it one,
if this woman have the covering of nature, but
the other who is shaven have not even this?" we
answer, that as far as her will goes, she threw
that off likewise by having the head bare. And
if it be not bare of tresses, that is nature’s
doing, not her own. So that as she who is
shaven hath her head bare, so this woman in
like manner. For this cause He left it to nature
to provide her with a covering, that even of it
she might learn this lesson and veil herself.
Then he states also a cause, as one discoursing
with those who are free: a thing which in many
places I have remarked. What then is the cause?
Ver. 7. "For a man indeed ought not to have his
head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and
glory of God."
This is again another cause. "Not only," so he
speaks, "because he hath Christ to be His Head
ought he not to cover the head, but because
also he rules over the woman." For the ruler
when he comes before the king ought to have
the symbol of his rule. As therefore no ruler
without military girdle and cloak, would
venture to appear before him that hath the
diadem: so neither do thou without the symbols
of thy rule, (one of which is the not being
covered,) pray before God, lest thou insult
both thyself and Him that hath honored thee.
And the same thing likewise one may say
regarding the woman. For to her also is it a
reproach, the not having the symbols of her
!133
subjection. "But the woman is the glory of the

man." Therefore the rule of the man is natural.
[5.] Then, having affirmed his point, he states
again other reasons and causes also, leading
thee to the first creation, and saying thus:
Ver. 8. "For the man is not of the woman, but
the woman of the man."
But if to be of any one, is a glory to him of
whom one is, much more the being an image of
him.
Ver. 9. "For neither was the man created for the
woman, but the woman for the man."
This is again a second superiority, nay, rather
also a third, and a fourth, the first being, that
Christ is the head of us, and we of the woman; a
second, that we are the glory of God, but the
woman of us; a third, that we are not of the
woman, but she of us; a fourth, that we are not
for her, but she for us.
Ver. 10. "For this cause ought the woman to
have a sign of authority on her head"
"For this cause:" what cause, tell me? "For all
these which have been mentioned," saith he; or
rather not for these only, but also "because of
the angels." "For although thou despise thine
husband," saith he, "yet reverence the angels."
It follows that being covered is a mark of
subjection and authority. For it induces her to
look down and be ashamed and preserve entire
her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of
the governed is to abide in his obedience.
Again: the man is not compelled to do this; for
he is the image of his Lord: but the woman is;
and that reasonably. Consider then the excess
of the transgression when being honored with
so high a prerogative, thou puttest thyself to
shame, seizing the woman’s dress. And thou
doest the same as if having received a diadem,
!134
Bishop Jerry Hayes
thou shouldest cast the diadem from thy head,

and instead of it take a slave’s garment.
Ver. 11. "Nevertheless, neither is the man
without the woman, nor the woman without the
man, in the Lord."
Thus, because he had given great superiority to
the man, having said that the woman is of him
and for him and under him; that he might
neither lift up the men more than was due nor
depress the women, see how he brings in the
correction, saying, "Howbeit neither is the man
man, in the Lord." "Examine not, I pray," saith he,
"the first things only, and that creation. Since
if thou enquire into what comes after, each one
of the two is the cause of the other; or rather
not even thus each of the other, but God of
all." Wherefore he saith, "neither is the man
man, in the Lord."
Ver. 12. "For as the woman is of the man, so is
the man also by the woman."
He said not, "of the woman," but he repeats the
expression, (from v. 7.) "of the man." For still
this particular prerogative remains entire with
the man. Yet are not these excellencies the
property of the man, but of God. Wherefore
also he adds, "but all things of God." If
therefore all things belong to God, and he
commands these things, do thou obey and
gainsay not.
Ver. 13. "Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly
that a woman pray unto God veiled?" Again he
places them as judges of the things said, which
also he did respecting the idol-sacrifices. For
as there he saith, "judge ye what I say:" (chap.
10:15.) so here, "judge in yourselves:" and he
hints something more awful here. For he says
that the affront here passes on unto God:
!135
although thus indeed he doth not express

himself, but in something of a milder and more
enigmatical form of speech: "is it seemly that a
woman pray unto God unveiled?"
Ver. 14. "Doth not even nature itself teach you,
that if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor
unto him?"
Ver. 15. "But if a woman have long hair, it is a
glory to her; for her hair is given her for a
covering." His constant practice of stating
commonly received reasons he adopts also in
this place, betaking himself to the common
custom, and greatly abashing those who waited
to be taught these things from him, which even
from men s ordinary practice they might have
learned. For such things are not unknown even
to Barbarians: and see how he every where
deals in piercing expressions: "every man
praying having his head covered dishonoreth
his head;" and again, "but if it be a shame for a
woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be
veiled:" and here again, "if a man have long hair,
it is a shame unto him; but if a woman have long
hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given
her for a covering."
"And if it be given her for a covering," say you,
"wherefore need she add another covering?"
That not nature only, but also her own will
may have part in her acknowledgment of
subjection. For that thou oughtest to be
covered nature herself by anticipation enacted
a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that
thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws
of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness,
to buffet not only with us, but with nature
also. This is why God accusing the Jews said,
(Ezek. 16:21, 22.) "Thou hast slain thy sons and
thy daughters: this is beyond all thy
abominations."
!136
Bishop Jerry Hayes
And again, Paul rebuking the unclean among

the Romans thus aggravates the accusation,
saying, that their usage was not only against
the law of God, but even against nature. "For
they changed the natural use into that which is
against nature." (Rom. 1:26.) For this cause then
here also he employs this argument signifying
this very thing, both that he is not enacting any
strange law and that among Gentiles their
inventions would all be reckoned as a kind of
novelty against nature. So also Christ,
implying the same, said, "Whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do ye also so them;"
showing that He is not introducing any thing
new.
Ver. 16. "But if any man seems to be
contentious, we have no such custom, neither
the Churches of God."
It is then contentiousness to oppose these
things, and not any exercise of reason.
Notwithstanding, even thus it is a measured
sort of rebuke which he adopts, to fill them
the more with self-reproach; which in truth
rendered his saying the more severe. "For we,"
saith he, "have no such custom," so as to
contend and to strive and to oppose ourselves.
And he stopped not even here, but also added,
"neither the Churches of God;" signifying that
they resist and oppose themselves to the whole
world by not yielding. However, even if the
Corinthians were then contentious, yet now the
whole world hath both received and kept this
law. So great is the power of the Crucified.
!137
Chapter XIII
AN HISTORICAL WITNESS OF IMAGES
Following, are etchings, drawings, paintings, and
photographs of Christian headcovering through two mil-
lennia. This evidence from history proves a continuity of
this Christian culture throughout the centuries; from the
Churchʼs beginning down to and including the present.
300s
200s Roman 800s
Roman
Catacomb
1300s 1400s
!138
Bishop Jerry Hayes
New England
1695
Lutherans
England
Lutheran 1943
Presbyterians
Pentecostals
Pentecostal
!139
The End
!140
Bishop Jerry Hayes
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Bishop Jerry Hayes is a

descendant of English Sea
Captain Jonathan Hayes,
who settled in pre-
Revolutionary War America.
As a result of services
rendered in the Indian Wars
and the War of 1812, the
Hayes family was granted
lands in West Tennessee.
Jerry was born in Henderson
County, West Tennessee, in
1950 to farming parents. He was baptized at age twelve and
ordained at age eighteen in the Apostolic fellowship of Christians.
Jerry has served the Apostolic church for over fifty years as
evangelist, pastor, teacher, author, debater, and educator.
Having studied Bible at Moody Bible Institute (Baptist), Chicago,
Illinois, with extended language studies at Milligan College
(United Church of Christ), Johnson City, Tennessee, Jerry brings to
the Apostolic pulpit the refreshing alliance of a fundamental
Pentecostal experience federated with a formal education.
Having received consecration as District Elder in the New England
dioceses of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World in 1999, Jerry
has gone on to be elevated to the office of Bishop by the Disciples
of the Way (Apostolic). On the fourth day of the month of April, in
the year of our Lord Two Thousand Thirteen, Bishop Jerry Hayes
was consecrated to the International Board of Bishops of the
Independent Christian Churches International, with Apostolic
Succession to the apostles of our Lord through the Antioch
Orthodox Succession, and the Anglican Communion.
!141
Other books by Bishop Jerry Hayes that are

available in paperback are:
The Jesus Debate
The Jesus Debate is a formal discussion on the person of Jesus Christ between
the Modalist and Unitarian theologies. Modalism holds that God has manifested
Himself in the economy of One triune being. The One Being existing in the
different modes of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. While the Unitarian view holds
that God is but one being Who is limited to the Father; that the Son is separate
and distinct Being from the Father Who is not God, but the Son of God. Modalism
(called Oneness in the twenty-first century) teaches the full deity of Jesus and
His full humanity as well. the Arian view of Unitarianism represented by Willy
Olmo in this book affirms the Father to be the only person of God and Jesus to
be His Son. (220 pages)
Letters to My Children on Apostolic Kingdom Theology

After spending over forty years in the dispensational doctrine, and having raise
my children in that theological framework, I became a convinced adherent to a
"kingdom" theology that recognizes the Church as the Israel of God, and that the
first century actually saw the fulfillment of most of Matthew chapter 24. "Letters
to My Children on Apostolic Kingdom Theology" is a compilation of twenty
four letters written to my children explaining my journey, and showing how we
were led astray from the apostolic teaching of Scripture to embrace a view
recently come into the Lord's church, of which the apostles knew nothing. These
"Letters" provide a systematic approach to Apostolic Eschatological study of
Scripture. It is sure to interest all students of Scriptures. (278 pages)
Finding God’s Grace in Divorce and Remarriage

Finding God's Grace in Divorce and Remarriage is an in-depth study of the
subject of divorce and re-marriage. Bishop Hayes does a scholarly exegesis of
virtually every passage of the New Testament that is germane to the topic. This
treatise will attempt to draw back the curtains of misconception and stigma, and
view with unprejudiced eyes the naked truths of Holy Scripture concerning
divorce and re-marriage. The Christian teaching is that: religiously, divorce
originally lay outside God's will, but politically had to be allowed because sin
entered into the human family. Therefore, in the tension between the religious
high ground of an idealistic state of no divorce, and the practical reality of political
necessity which allows it, there are two basic ethical questions asked by
Christians: 1,) Is a Christian ever justified in seeking a divorce? 2.) Once
divorced, may a Christian re-marry? This is a book that declares the grace of
God to be extravagant in its reach. (220 pages)
The Lord’s Supper

In The Lord's Supper Bishop Hayes presents a comprehensive study of the holy
Sacrament. Both the Catholic and Reformed positions are examined and biblical
solutions are given for the problems that exist in the mentioned theologies. The
book answers important questions, like: "What is the Lord's supper?" Who may
!142
Bishop Jerry Hayes
partake of the Lord's supper?" "Is the body and blood of Christ really present in
the elements or do the elements actually change into the body and blood of
Christ?" "How often should the Lord's Supper be observed?" These are but a few
of the questions addressed in the book. Having shopped in several Bible
bookstores and discovering how little is written on the subject it is safe to predict
that this work will be in great demand and a standard volume in the libraries of
those who love the Sacrament. (146 pages)
The Apocalypse, Book One

The Apocalypse, Book One is the introduction to the biblical book of Revelation.
Here Bishop Hayes also gives a verse by verse commentary of the first three
chapters of the Apostle John's Revelation of Jesus Christ, covering the letters
addressed to the seven churches of Asia Minor. This book is the first in a series
on the Apocalypse which takes a marked Historicist position. The Bible student
will thrill at the Bishop's easy evangelist style of presenting deep and unique
truths never before published. In this study a wealth of information will be shared
with the disciples of Christ on each verse of this great manuscript. (352 pages.)
The Disciples of the Way (Apostolic): An Introduction to the

“Disciples”
The Disciples of the Way (Apostolic) is an introduction to the DOTWA. This
book contains DOTWA's mission statement in the form of a Manifesto, and the
statement of faith in the form of the Apostolic Creed. Also, included is the entire
study course for the Novice which is complete with the exam. This book is
designed to totally inform the person wanting to know about the Disciples of the
Way (Apostolic). (112 pages.)
The Way of Prayer

In The Way of Prayer Bishop Hayes guides the disciple through a month
regiment of prayer that includes five daily prayer times. The Way of Prayer is
constructed around the Our Father prayer, the biblical book of Psalms, and the
Apostolic Creed. (252 pages)
Apostolic Orthodox Church

The Apostolic Orthodox Church is an introduction to a truly apostolic
Christian fellowship. Apostolic in both doctrine and Holy Orders. Here the
reader can review the Constitution and Bylaws of the church, review the
doctrine of Apostolic Succession, and actually see the apostolic linage of
Presiding Bishop Jerry L Hayes. (178 pages)
Godhead Theology
Godhead Theology is a study of Christian Godhead theology. Beginning
during the lifetime of the apostles of our Lord, the identity of Jesus was
challenged: Was He God or not? In Godhead Theology Bishop Jerry
Hayes follows that debate through the first 300 years of the Church's
history. Our book is in five sections: Section One is the history of the
early Church from A. D. 100 to 400 and demonstrates Modalistic
!143
Monarchianism as the original orthodoxy of the Chruch; Section Two

introduces the Apostolic Creed and establishes its purpose; Section
Three is an affirmation of Modalistic Monarchianism; Section Four is
Modalism's responses to objection from the pluralist: Trinitarians,
Binitarians, Arians and Semi-Arians. Included are two comprehensive
indexes: Subject Index and Scripture Index. (614 pages)
Bishop Hayes may be contacted at:

e-mail: disciplesoftheway@yahoo.com
!144

Christian Woman's Headcovering (Original)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christian Woman's Headcovering (Original)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christian Woman's Headcovering (Original)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Christian

Bishop Jerry Hayes

This work is dedicated to all the gracious women of God

Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far

Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall

Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that

THE HOLY SCRIPTURE

Letter to the Corinthians From Paul the Apostle:

“Be ye followers of me, even as I also

God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

I am very aware that most of the people who call

When Jesus was asked about the Christian

headcovering. Paul goes on to instruct the Christian

been felt (is even today felt) from his previous

only, but also her own will may have

I. Headcovering Identified and Enjoined (1

II. Headcovering Established By Four Scriptural and

Spiritual Arguments (1 Corinthians 11: 7-10)

III. Interlude (1 Corinthians 11:11-12)

IV. Headcovering Is Reasoned From Three Areas of

HEADCOVERING IDENTIFIED AND

Discontentment with oneʼs sphere of authority was

softens his approach by listing the manʼs head first—then

is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls,

listed, one may extrapolate this list to include all three of

down over his head.” The Amplified Bible reads; “For a

It should be pointed out that this is a drastic

(The reader will

men universally, even in areas of the world where

In the English language, verbs are either active or

4reflexive verb - a verb whose agent performs an action that is directed

“It is wrong to say that the verb cover means

The Septuagint Refutes Segraves

verb, katakalupto, in the Septuagint,5 the Greek

5 Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the

elsewhere to refer to the hair. The usage of kalupto (also:

6 “No More Excuses,” by A. A. Bieler

kephales)—a way of saying he put something over his

7 “No Such Custom,” by Bruce Terry, pages 6-7

mention the garment that covers the head, but only

8 Plutrach: AD 46 – AD 120),was a Greek historian, biographer, and

“...a virgin arrayed as if she were going forth from

Before we pass from verse 4 it should be pointed

Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head

France shaves the heads of women collaborators - 1944

Moreover, the uncovered head that Paul is referencing

made free, rather use it. 22 For he who is called

Paul knew very well that not all women in the

14 “The Corinthian Women Prophets,” by Antoinette Clark Wire; pp64-45

to hold office in the Church, even that of bishop. It seems

15 Pliny the Younger, Epistle to Trajan, 10:96

Since, we are told in verse 3 that the head of the

The Bible clearly teaches superiority and in-

would be concluded that a woman would be uncovered if

Watchman Nee16 comments on this verse with a note of

16Watchman Nee, or Ni Tuoseng, November 4, 1903 – May 30, 1972, Chinese

A woman who has cut her hair cannot be

“... let her be covered.” ∼ From A. T. Robertson’s Word

“I (Paul) command you to veil yourself, now and